



mUmP 5 


m 


* ^ *! *•* ft*-fi/ZTiV r 

vif\rtyhf^-Hkwi*i§rv»> rb»3ru 
•fr't '- f $**{;’{ 2/5 fW^%> ;fh k rs * >' •> . 

MM 

.-,** {*. wfh<-v*V 'if iff j ,v fi J 

?,|[ .j«r.jy.r •* . : 2t*- Krf *rw4?i»vfc¥t'4i t f**r*. f! *.>/>*• ■ i-Vo 
■•-r 1 !*>>■•. a?/iflwi J OT- ■ 

K*jikWk'*rr ffrr \T Cwiir)i*iR,fi W)ftf*ytw >* •: »- \> pirNnajp *. f. »' U ' ;r It 

I'SMM'Bpp P'"w j^Htf I# f •;, 

KWwftr >JWm£J 1 f rlji'j j»i t?i pfrr; «•• jxHJt i[ft -* -.fi): k- ■ 1 tLSm&l w«*•• A*u ;>; r 

Vv;. • M:( x . 1 (► f fflffSHKiDsOyfflamH■' ’,»! •.ftu, BkMt 




iP j ; -,J 7,: i r v f T’«ir' '•Ff j . f ! }.*.i* •*' fji r, v i.* 

MMMiiHMHfflBnHR 

* aaM WHM M&MMMI 

l*A*Vt ttMr*« " • ■ &■*{]£*•filli m i !('>•'-1 *vi W-‘• tfek-hi nVft’fr&i&ifif' wfiwRf,n 

■'Wwt’FW **raw 1;W'-• ‘H<t-/-*.*ff*.-^j.rr•; r ii* Iffiftfi ‘ ■ 

wM MM MMI I 

»Mrl s 4- •«8l • * .•.'«•■• a: it».Jw {*•• 

»/.»'*■<'>». 'fisAt Wt‘ ’ tr"'4■ I -j •>.!■ ‘ ''fit: 1 )‘S f ( 

■fo * !•fl V; «'■ :»v5 ;•;• ■ <t s n|'' ffrl-WH®6187(5 •rif t-,, 

4V t-\‘. 1 .." h hi /Oh . • -fir- . 1.';.r ‘ -‘ftyi/'i; '; i :a •■ ’•!!, ■ | r 
t W ■ r!"ji! j ■ ^r;c< I skI it: > , ' r! 

;,-y % |£;«|j »|SSifMra | |j wwwtw .Mi W 























































































































































































































Class 

Book 

























I 


HISTORY 

OF 

THAT INIMITABLE MONARCH 

T I BERIUS, 

WHO, 


i v 


IN THE XIV YEAR OF HIS REIGN, 

REQUESTED THE SENATE 

TO PERMIT THE WORSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST- 

AND WHO. 

IN THE XVI AND THREE FOLLOWING YEARS, 


OR, 

BEFORE THE CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS BY PETER . 

SUPPRESSED ALL OPPOSITION TO IT. 



The Rev. JOHN RENDLE, M. A. 

LATE1A MATH. LECT. OF SID. SUSS. COLL. CAMBRIDGE, 

AND SINCE FELLOW OF THAT SOCIETY, 

BUT NOW VICAR OF WIDECOMBE IN THE MOOR, DEVON. 


Ut quibus initiis, quantd arte Tiberii gravissimum exitium irrepserit, 
dein repression sit, postremo arserit, cunctaque corripuerit’ 
noscatur * Tac. Ann. i. 73 ! 

Repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstiiio rursus erumpebat, non 
uiodo per Judseam originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam. 

Ann. xv. 44. 

Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimce gentis consnetudo convaluit ut 
per omnes jam terras recepta sit: victi victoribus leges dederunt . 

Sen. de Superstitione. 


EXETER*. PRINTED BY TREWMAN AND SON, 1UGH-STREET, 


1813, 


) ) » 
> > 

.1 ) > 

* ) > 


/ 


















V V * 


^ 1 '■ • • \ V A 




* 

















■ 

- £ ' 1 - • 


♦ 








* 








/ > 


; 












. 


’ . • . . ' v.■ 




' 






y.j 






,, . H 

’ 

) * t 




.... •• '• ' 


■ - 

’ 


















' * * 


r :'•*’• Iff 


r *A 1 

-A ^ 

U 5 






























« • 
• • 

A » * 








- 







■ 


• - 















THE HISTORY 


OF 


r'l BEKIU 


Who, as seven cotemporary and other writers say, was 
VERY STUDIOUS OF EVERY LIBERAL AND USEFUL SCIENCE. 

As long as he lived 

THE FRIEND OF NONE BUT VIRTUOUS AND LEARNED MEN. 

When commander in chief 

MOST CORDIALLY BELOVED BY ALL HIS OFFICERS AND MEN. 
During the Pannonian and German wars 
THE SOLE SUPPORTER OF THE ROMAN SUPER-EMINENCE. 

Live years before he became a Monarch 
BY THE SENATE MADE EQUAL IN POWER TO AUGUSTUS. 

Long after he was a Monarch 

A DE TESTER OF FLATTERY AND OF ALL POMPOUS TITLES. 

In the tenth year of his Monarchy 

THE ABHORRENT OPPOSER OF HIS OWN DEIFICATION. 

Long after the disaster at Fidenae 

MOST EMINENTLY EXEMPLARY', GREAT, JUST, AND HUMANE. 

After he was so very exemplary, &c. 

AN EATER OF HUMAN FLESH AND A DRINKER OF HUMAN BLOOD. 

During most of his reign 

THE UNIVERSAL DISPENSER OF THE BLESSINGS OF TRACE. 

From the fourteenth to the nineteenth of his reign 
PERMITTED THE WORST OF ALL CIVIL WARS TO RAGE AT ROME. 
During the three first years of the same period 
OVERCOME BY THE PRESSURE OF FAMILY AFFLICTIONS. 

In the decline of life 

NEGLIGENT OF THE GODS, BUT ATTENTIVE TO SOME ONE GOD. 

Always 

A FRIEND OF JEWS AND THE MAINTAINER OF JEWISH RITES. 

From the time he went to Rhodes 

A HEARER OF THE LAW AND A PARTIAL DOER OF IT. 

Sometime before he died 

REMARKABLY INQUISITIVE ABOUT FUTURITY. 

In the fourteenth year of his reign 
A BELIEVER IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 

After the Jews had preferred Barabbas to Jefus 
THE ABOLISI1ER OF ALL SANCTUARY PROTECTIONS. 

Before the death of Sejanus 

THE FIRST PROHIBITOR OF IMMEDIATE EXECUTIONS. 

During the last eight years of his reign 
THE NURSING FATHER OF THE INFANT CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

I 

In the sixteenth year of his reign 

THE PROTECTOR OF JEWISH CHRISTIANS AS NOT BLASPHEMERS. 

When old 

OF ALL KINGS OR AUTOCRATS THE MOST VENERABLE. 

Whose death was 

AS SOME AFFIRMED, PREFIGURED BY THAT OF A PHCENIX. 

Whose funeral was 

SOLEMNIZED WITH DUE POMP AND AT THE TUBLIC EXPENCE. 

And, laflly, who, at his death 

FOLLOWED AUGUSTUS TO THE RESIDENCE OF THE GODS. 










' 




. 




* J 










" 1 

■ • 










.. . . 

“ 

. 

■ * , 


7 * 












V 








i 






% 




r 

■ ' ‘ : ,' • 

V 


' 










■ 

’ ‘ - 4 , ' s 

- ; <\ 

















\ 

. 

' 
















< 


















, % 4 ' UO I 












m 









/ 














CONTENTS, 






CHIEF PARTS. 


Pages, 


i.—E xtracts from the works of cotemporary and other 
early writers concerning the several articles enume¬ 
rated in the second title page, i . . . . 5 to 4Q 

II.—Chronological synopsis of events during the life of Tiberius 51 .. 54 
III.-—The life of Tiberius. . . . ; . . . 3 .. 432 


Particulars in each of the chief Parts 




PART I. 

Very studious of every liberal and useful Science. 
The friend of none but virtuous and learned Men. 
Most cordially beloved by all his Officers and Men. 
The sole supporter of the roman super-eminence. 

>y the Senate made equal in power to Auguftus. 

A detester of Flattery and all pompous Titles. , 


Page. 

. 5 

. (5 

• i 

• / 

. 8 

. 12 







Page. 

The abhorrent opposer of his own Deification. . . . . .13 

Most eminently exemplary, great, just, and humane. . , .13 

An eater of human flesh and a drinker of human blood. . . . 19 

The universal dispenser of the blessings of peace. . . r .19 

Permitted the worst of all civil wars to rage at Rome. . . .20 

Overcome by the pressure of family afflidions. . . . . .22 

Negligent of the Gods but attentive to some one God. . . .23 

A friend of Jews and the maintainer of jewish rites. . . . .25 

A hearer of the Law and a partial doer of it. . . . .25 

Remarkably inquisitive about Futurity.. .2 6 

A believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ. . . . . .28 

The abolisher of all sanctuary Protections. . . . . .44 

The first prohibitor of immediate Executions. . . . . .44 

The nursing Father of the Infant Catholic Church. . . . .45 

The Protector of jewifli Christians as not Blasphemers. : . .47 

Of all Kings or Autocrats the most venerable.48 

Whose death was prefigured by that of a Phoenix. : ; . . 48 

Who was buried with due pomp and at the public expence. . . 49 

Who followed Augustus to the residence of the Gods. . . .49 


PART II. 

* 

i k 0 • * 

Column. 

1. —The years before and after the birth of our Lord, who, as Eusebius 

and others fay, was born in the 33d of Herod. 

2. —The corresponding years of Rome. 

, i * 1 

3. —The corresponding years of Augustus or Tiberius. 

4. —The names of consuls from whom each year of Rome was denominated. 

N. B.—The names of (hose consuls who were in office during our Lord’s ministry 
are in Italicks —the name of the junior, when our Lord was baptised, and the name of 
the senior, when our Lord was crucified. 

5. —The years of the reigns of Herod and Archelaus, See. 

6 and 7«-~'The corresponding olympiad and part. 




PART III. 


9 





Chapter . Pages, 

I.—Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711. . . . 3 to 12 

II,—Tiberius went to Rhodes in 749, and returned in 7<55. 13 .. 17 

III. —Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. . . 18 .. 50 

IV. —Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius. . 51 to 61 

V.—Germanicus died naturally. 62 .: 82‘ 

VI.—When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. . . 83 .. 107 

VII.—Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Capreae 108 .. 132 

VIII.—Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother, &c. . 133 .. 145 

IX.—Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions. . 146 .. 158 

X.—When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in 

the empire ?....... 159 .. 166 

XI.—Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 167 • • 184 

XII.—The worfhip of Tiberius enforced against his will . 185 .. 213 

XIII. —Tiberius why and \yhen lampooned. . . . 214 .. 239 

XIV. —Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion. . 240 .. 253 

XV. —Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. . . 254 .. 289 

XVI. —The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews from 

Rome—and, Tiberius then protected them. . 290 .. 326 

XVII. —Who were accusers, &c. ? Who were the accused, &c. ? 327 .. 337 
XVIII.—Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewish believers, &c. 338 .. 348 

XIX.—The rise of Sejanus..349 .. 360 

XX. —Drusus whether poisoned?.361 .. 371 

XXI. —Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. . . . 372 .. 408 

XXII.—When and why did Agrippa leave Italy ? . . 409 .. 411 

XXIII.—Was Peter at Rome in the days of Tiberius ? . . 412 .. 417 

XXIV.—A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, 

and of his conduct towards Chriftians. . . 418 .. 431 

Conclusion. . . . . . . . 432 
















».* 




> •+ I 




.. ' ■ ft ‘ ■- 















* 

‘ 










t 


■ 






' 




I J 


V • ♦ 









a* . * 





V 

• 





















- " 




I 










' 


— 

























• < 


















ORIGINAL QUOTATIONS 

FROM 

The works of' the ancient Authors, 

Alluded to in the preceding TITLE PAGE, 

IN SUPPORT OF THE 

SEVERAL PARTICULARS THEREIN ASSERTED OF 

Ctbertus. 


Very studious of every liberal and useful Science. 

Augustus. —Vale jucundiffime Tiberi, et rem gere feliciter— 
EfjLCi KXI rxis M tsaxis spxryym. Suet. iii. 21. 

Horace. —Legentis honefta Neronis. Ejiifl. 1.9./. 4. 

Paterculus. —Innutritus creleftium praceptoYum difcifilinis , ju- 
venis genere, forma, cellitudine corporis, optimis Jludiis maximoque 
ingenio inftru&iffimus. ii. 94. 

PHILO .—xXhx r%v tfx^eixv j xxi ns rv typovipurepos y hoynevrepcs exeive 
'ruv nxr xvrov otx.(J.v)crctvT'oy} p. 783. F. 

' "" -—a (a, 5jv xKkx 3 mi eri vsos cov, o 7rpe<?£vry)s s^eyero Si xiliu rvjv zjtpt ryv xy^ivo/xv. 

p. 783. F. 

*—■*— evrsdiv) rrpos to ct^wrzpov re xxi xv5"vporepov eye oov cjc t vis npurns viXnuxs 
sirniXtvus eiftsv. p. 786. Fv 

Suetonius. —Artes liberales utriufque generis ftudiofiffime coluit. 

iii. 70 . 

Dion C. — 'eyQviAYiOsis ev n'KTos wept xvth, •jtxvtxs res rx roixvrx xytpiQevrxs 
jAtrt'rrtiA'^eiro, rrxvv yxp tu,thtv xvtw tS <$ix}.eyea 9 xt. 

L* 57 * P* 613* 




6 


The friend of none hut virtuous and learned Men. 

Paterculus. —Honorantur re&a, prava puniuntur—honor dignis 

i 

paratiffimus—nam facere redte cives fuos Princeps optimus faciendo 
docet. ii. 126 . 

f 

V. Maximus.— Te igitur liuic caepto, penes quem hominum 
Deorumque confenfus, maris ac terra? regimen effe voluit, certifftma 
falus patriae Caefar invoco : cujus coelefti prudentia, virtutes de quibus 
di&urus fum benigniffime foventur: vitia feverilTime vindicantur. 

Prcl. ad Tib. 

Philo.—E Xtxuv x'ns^svaxTo tuv syxvxXiuv xxtx (piXoripuxv ra •npoTspu 
<$e<TT30T8 f os acvrov s^upvicrxTo T i£epiu Kxiaxpi tots /xsv ay uospixs sTvyyxvs 
ZTpOVOpUXS , OCTX fjLSipXXlU^V) ^XplSVTt(7fJiXTX T iGepiU OiXfXSpUTYjXOTOS S7TS10YI •npos TO 
&ipvoTtpov re xa» xvr*ipoTspov cr^eSoy ejc TTpuTvs r t Kixixs sttikAivus e/^ey. 

p. 786 . F. 

CLEMENS OF R.- ^sxcrxpsvos cie 0 Kxiaxp Toy rs TfxTtpx xxi Ttjv (Avirtpx, 

xxi ntiyvus xvtus e | er ») I'm tutu. xxi mspi^vs xvtu tu t pxyvihu y Qsppus sxXxitv. 
vntcr^uv £e ra 'rnyQus, vpos rov (TvyyXviToy x'lroQXs^xs, avyyxpyTi poi, t<py 
vtxvtss, xxi xomjv sopTv>y •noificru^x, ttjv xvevpw/v <PxvfU xxi M xtOi^ixs, oti vsxpoi 
yopt^opsyoi avefwav , xxi xn roAwXorer svp-nQviaxy. De gcjhs P. p . 143 . 

Tacitus. —Caeteri liberalibus ftudiis praediti, ferme Graeci, quorum 
fermonibus levaretur. Ann. iv. 58 . 

.- ■ Cocceius Nerva continuus Principis omnis divini huma- 

nique juris fciens. Ann. vi. 26 . 

—— Turn complexus eum (Thrafyllum) Tiberius inter inti- 
mos amicorum tenet. Ann. vi. 21 . 

N. B. Julian fays of Thrafyllus that he would have been equally 
famous if he never had been acquainted with Tiberius. 

1 

DlON C.— Ov $e £>?v sti, spi, x%ios eifu, £i <ye xxi A zvtvXos pis yuan. 

L. 57 . fub fine. 







7 


-- o tis Srj 7 TsrQspos xvtv M cx.fy.os 2/Aavor, v&’ vTToayo^zros n y art xxrcjxoirxSy 

q[/.us tTTziov) ftxpvs ccvThi V7T0 re Tys xptTys xxi viro t r)S avyysvsixs r)V XXI Six 
rSro TnpivQpi^tro, txvrov xxrzyjrxTxTo. o /u,sv yxp T i£epios vtws xvvov zri[AV)<Tsvj 
costs. [Ayr! txxKr>rov ttote xts xvra Sixx&xi iQi\r)crxtj x\\' exeivv ttxdtx xvQis 

tx ToixvTx lyysipiexi. L. 59. p. 645. F. 646. A, 

.Most cordially beloved by all his Officers and Men . 

Paterculus. —Neque illi fpeftaculo, quo fruftus fum, fimile 
conditio mortalis recipere videtur mihi: cum per celeberrimam 
Italice partem, traftum omnem Gallise provinciarum veterem im- 
peratorem, et ante meritis ac virtutibus quam nomine, Caefarem 
revifentes, fibi quifque quam illi, gratularentur plenius. At vero 
militum confpeftu ejus elicitac gaudio lacrymas, alacritafque et falu- 
tationes novaqunedam exultatio, et contingendi manus cupiditas, non 
continentium protinus, quin adjeeerant—Videmus te, Imperator? 
falvum recepimus?—ac deinde—Ego tecum, Imperator, in Armenia, 
ego in Pannonia, ego in Germania donatus fum. ii. 104. 

-Quanta cum quiete hominum, rem perpetui praecipuique 

timoris, fupplementum, fine tr-epidatione deleft us pro videt ? ii. 130. 

Tacitus. —Ire ipfum, et opponere majeftatem imperatoriam de- 
buifie, cefTuris, ubi principem longa experientia, eundemque feveri- 
tatis et munificentiae fummum vidiflent. A. i. 46. 

The sole supporter of the Roman super-eminence. 

Augustus ad Tib. —Teque rogo ut parcas tibi: ne fi te lan- 
guere audierimus, et ego et mater tua exfpiremus et de fumma im¬ 
perii P. R. periclitetur. Suet. iii. 2T. 

N. B. Suetonius had before faid of Auguftus—et epiftolis aliquot, 
(Tib.) ut paritiffimum rei militaris, atque unicum prajidium p. R. 
profequebatur. 

Paterculus. —Laetitiam illius diei, concurfumque civitatis, et 

1 

vota pene inferentium coelo manus fpemque conceptae ferfetua fecuri - 






s 


tatis atemitatifque r. i., vix in illo jufto opere abunde perfequi potc- 
rimus, nedum hie implere tentemus. Id unum dixifle [juvat] quam 
ille omnibus fuerit [carus] turn refulfit certa fpes liberorum paren- 
tibus, viris matrimoniorum, dominis patrimonii; omnibus hominibus 
falutis, quietis, pacis, tranquillitatis: adeo, ut nec plus fperari potuerit, 


nec fpei refponderi felicius. ii. 103 . 

Y. Maximus. —Princeps parenfque nofter.audlor et tutela 

incolumitatis noftra?. ix. ii. 


By the Senate made equal in power to Augustus . 

Paterculus. —Autumno (that is in autumn of the year u. c. 
761 , and immediately after the peace with Pannonia, as Dion fays 
in the end of 55 book) vidtor in hyberna reducitur exercitus, cujus 
omnibus copiis a Caefare (a Caefaribus, no doubt, fays the Oxf. Ed.) 
M. Lepidus praefe&us eft, vir nominis et fortunae eorurn proximus. 

ii. 114 . 

- Initio aetatis Lepidus, edu&o hybernis exercitu, &c.— 

pervenit ad Caefarem; et ob ea, quae, ft propriis gefliflet aufpiciis, 
triumphare debuerat, ornamentis triumphalibus, confentiente prin- 
cipum voluntate donatus eft. —. u^. 

N. B. By the former of thofe two extra&s it appears that Lepidus 
was, early in the year u. c. 762 , made, by Auguftus and Tiberius, 
commander in chief. And by the other, that he, in the fame year, and 
by confent of the fame princes, was inverted with triumphal ornaments. 

- Eadem et virtus et fortuna fubfequenti tempore ingrefla 

animum imperatoris Tiberii fuit, qua? initio fuerat, qui .... cum_ 

molliflet, et fenatus populufque Romanus (poftulante patre ejusl ut 
aequum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibufque eflet, quam erat 
ipfi, decreto complexus eflet (etenim abfurdum erat ....) in urbem 
r ever Jus , jam pridem debitum, fed continuatione bellorum dilatum, 
ex Pannonicis Dalmatifque egit triumphum. ii. 121 , 








9 


N. B. By this we learn that Tiberius was, before he returned to 
Rome and triumphed over the Pannonians and Dalmatians, by the 
Senate, inverted with power equal to that of Auguftus. 

-- Quibus juventam ejus exaggeravit honoribus, refpondente 

cultu triumphi rerum quas gerterat magnitudini ? ii. 129. 

Thofe honors appear, by what Dion fays L. 56. p. 582. B., to have 
been conferred on Germanicus in the year u. c. 763, and before the 
news arrived of the defeat of Varus. 

Suetonius. —Data rurfus poteftas Tribunitia in quinquennium: 
delegatus pacandae Germanise rtatus: Parthorum legati, mandatis 
Augufto Romae redditis, eum quoque adire in Provinciam jufli. 

111. 16. 

Nihilominus urbem praetextatus, et laurea coronatus intravk, poll- 

Mil M ri ' . «#. T . f ’ „ ^ ' f | . . 

tumque in Septis tribunal, Senatu adftante, confcendit: ac medius 
inter duos Cofs. cum Augufto Jimul j edit : unde, populo confalutato, 
circum templa deductus eft. iii. 17. 

N. B. This triumphant entrance into the city muft, according 
to Dion, L. 56, init., have happened in the year u. c. 762. And, 
therefore, the Parthian ambaftadors muft, before that entrance, have 

been fent to Tiberius in Germany. 

‘ * “ ' | ' * ' ‘ < . . » _ «. . . 

■ - - Ac non multo port; Lege per Cofs. lata, ut Provincias 

cum Augufto communiter adminiftraret, fimulque cenfum ageret , con- 
dito luftro in lllyricum profe<ftus eft. iii. 21. 

N. B. By this it appears that this law enabling Tiberius, with 
Auguftus, to govern the provinces and to make a cenfus, was parted 
before the laft cenfus was begun, and as every cenfus lafted five years, 
and that here fpoken of ended a little before the death of Auguftus, 
this law muft have been parted u. c. 762. 

B, 






. 

10 

. J* * r - _ / 

4 

S~ 

Tacitus.— Drufoque priclem exftinfto, Nero folus t privignis erati 

illuc cun&a vergere: filius, collega imperii, confors tribunitia? potes- 

* 

tatis adfumitur, omnifque per exercitus oftentatur: non, &c. A. i. 3. 

N. B. By the order in which Tacitus has mentioned thofe three 
degrees of promotion, it fhould feem that Tiberius was made colleague 
in the empire before he was made partner in the tribunitial authority. 

»■■■■■ Etenim Auguftus, frauds ante annis , cum Tiberio tribu- 
nitiam poteftatem a patribus rurfum poftularct, quamquam, &c. 

A. i. 10. 

Query—How many years before the death of Auguftus was the 
tribunitial authority again conferred on Tiberius ?—Dion fays 1. 55. 
p. 556. E. that in 757 the tribunitial power was conferred on Tiberius 
for ten years. Confcquently, if that power was given to him in the 
year u. c. 757, it muft have ended in the year u. c. 767, the year in 
which Auguftus died. That it was then given to him, Paterculus 
fays, ii. 103. But could Tacitus have here meant by frauds annis the 
year 757, when Auguftus adopted Tiberius? Would Auguftus then 
have expofed his defefts? Did he not then fay—Hoc reip. caufla 
facio ? Surely Tacitus muft have here meant the fame year, as he 
had before done, i. 3. when Tiberius was made collega imperii.—And 
the fame as Suetonius does, iii. 16. where he fays the Parthian am- 
balfadors were fent into Germany to attend Tiberius. 

- Ut verfa Ccefarum fobole, imperium adeptus eft. 

Ann . ii. 42. 

bi : 

Now what does he mean by this ? That he could not have meant 
by it to allude to the commencement of Tiberius* monarchy is 
plain, from wbat he fays, i. 6.—primum facinus novi imperii fuit 
Agrippce Pofthumi caedes. Does he then mean that Tiberius ob¬ 
tained a (hare in the government foon after the death of Caius? At 
that time Agrippa Pofthumus was alive and in favor. Muft he not 




11 


then have meant by it the difgrace of Agrippa Pofthumus ? If he 
does, Tiberius mull have been admitted to a lhare in the government 
after u. c. 760 , for Dion fays, 1. 55 . p. 570 . A. that Agrippa was in 

that year banifhed to Planalia, near Coriica. 

\ , 

-Fine anni (u. c. 788 . T. 22 .) Poppseus Sabinus conceffit 

vita.principum amicitia, confulatum et triumphale decus adep- 

tus: maximifque provinciis per quatuor et viginti annos impofitus. 

Ann. vi. 39 . 

Now P. Sabinus was, we know, conful it. c. 762 , feveral years 
after the deaths of Caius and Lucius, and, more than one after the 
banifhment of Agrippa.—Confequently, by—principum amicitia—can 
only be underflood that of Auguflus and Tiberius., 

DlON C0 Avyu^os xxt ru yy>px xxt rr> r« aruf^xros xStvux ikx(avsv, 

/x>) fivvxa§xt noitri rots ^lopjavo/s rt xvr» xpvnAxrtfytv, rx fxty xWx xvros (aitx 

\ 

Tuv ovntipw xxt ^ttaxi^xro, text i^ixx^tv, tv ru TlxXxnu vnt (Zviaxtos TrpoxxOr>[jt.tvo: 
rxs vpiaGttxS) rxs rt vrxpx run xxt rxs irxpx ruv fix<rt\tuv x^ixya^tyxs, 

rpttri ruv wxrtvxoruv nrirpt^tv, us xvrtss yupts txaycy xxt ^ixxattv rtvuv, xxt 
etifoxpia’t't avrots ^tooixt, irXvw ruv oerx avxyxxtoy ijv rvi rt (3xXr )y xxt txetyor 

tvi^taxpivitv. !• 55- P- 5 6 7- B - 

■ 1 — O oyj TtZiptos is rvv Vupj .1 jy {/.trx roy ^tt/Auva, tv u Kvivros 2«X7 nxtos xxt 
Txtos ZxGivos vTrxrivavt, avsxofjLteQv. avru> xxt o Avyufos is to •npoxftiov air- 
xvrnaxs, yjXGe rt ^ir avrS is rx Ztnrx, xxvravOx xtso $v[jlxtos roy c>i,[aov 

vjffVxaxro. 1- 5 6 - P- S7 2 - E - 

An Ancient Panegyrist. —Quoufque hoc Maximiniane, patiar, 
me quati, tc quiefeere, mihi libertatem adimi, te ufurpare tibi illi- 
citam midionem? Ail quod Divo Auguflo, pofl feptuaginta aetatis, 

quinquaginta imperii, non licuit annos, tam cita licuft tibj ? 

*» 

Pagius—Critic. A. C> num . iii. 


B2 




12 


A detester of flattery and of all 'pompous Titles. 

* • . r> ‘ ^ ' ' ‘ ’ 

Suetonius. —Intercept et quo minus in adla fua juraretur: et nc- 
menfis September, Tiberius; Odlober, Livius vocaretur. Praenomen 
quoque Imperatoris, cognomenque Patris Patriae, et civicam in vefti- 
bulo coronam recufavit. Ac ne Augufti quidem nomen, quanquam 
haereditarium, ullis nifi ad Reges ac dynaftas epiftolis addidit. 

111 . 20 . 

-- Adulationcs adeo averfatus eft, ut neminem Senatorum 

aut officii aut negotii caufa ad ledticam fuam admiferit: confularein 
vero fatisfacientem fibi, ac per genua orare conantem ita fuffugerit, 
ut caderet fupinus: atque etiam fi quid in fermone; vel in continua 
oratione blandius de fe diceretur, non dubitaret interpellare ac re- 
prehendere, et commutare continuo. Dominus appellatus a quodam, 
denuntiavit, ne fe amplius contumeliae caufa nominaret. iii. 27 . 

Tacitus. —Nomen patris patriae Tiberius a populo faepius in- 
geftum repudiavit: neque in adla fua jurari, quamquam cenfente 
fenatu, permifit; cundla mortalium incerta, quantoque plus adeptus 
foret, tanto fe magis in lubrico didtans. Ann. i. 7 1. 

DlON. C. — xxi are SeaToryv exvrov rots s\ev9spois, ars xvroxpxropx, TtXyv tow 
i 'pxnurxis, xxhsiv etyiei : to, ti m •nxrpos r»j s •nxrpioos 'rrpoo-pyyuz, txv rtXojs 
(hwaa.ro. Upoxpiros St tvis yspaaixs xxrx to xpyxtov Vi9sXs'j ovofxa^eaOxt. xxi 
rtoX'Xxxw eXsysv on— ■Aso’TToti'jj (xev Tuy SuXuv, xvroxpxrcop Si ruv ^panuruv, toiv 
h XotTruv mpoxpiros upi. yvyero rs roaarov xxi fyaxi xxi ap%ai ypovov, oaov xv 
to h&0?iv avfx^tpv). XXI vru ye Six irxvruv opoius Syi^otixos yjv x. r. A. 

1. 57 . p. 607 . A. 

rw T *&P‘V rtf 0&VS tyxapcsvyr, xau rot y»v (xwx tov N oty&pm, ev u m 
txrt) enti Ssxx eyeymro, Ti&piov xxXuaOxi axioms—Kxi ti, e$v, wornasre, si 
Ssxxrpets Kxtaxpss ytvuvrau ] Cy p 614 E 






13 


The abhorrent op-poser of his own Deification . 

Suetonius. —Templa, Flamines, Sacerdotes decerni fibi prohibuit: 
etiam ftatuas, atque imagines, nifi permittente fe poni: permilitque, ea 
fola conditione, ne inter fimulacra Deorum, fed inter ornamenta 
jedium ponerentur. Intercept et quo minus in a£ta fua juraretur. 

iii. 26 . 

- Dominus appellatus a quodam, denuntiavit, ne fe am- 

plius contumeliae caufa nominaret. Alium dicentem facras ejus 
occupationes, &c. pro facris laboriofas dicere coegit. iii. 27 . 

Tacitus. —Ego me P. C. mortalem efle, et hominuin officia fungi, 
fatifque habere, fi locum principem impleam, et vos teflor, et memi- 
nifle pofteros velo, See. —Tiberius to the Senate.—To which Tacitus 
fubjoins—Perftititque pofthoc, fecretis etiam fermonibus, afpernari 
talem fui cultum. Ann. iv. 38 . 

DlON C .—Txvrx re uv SyfAonxus Siuxei. xxt on <m re[Aivicr[AX xvru ore us 

xvOxiperov, aXX’ xXXus rore ye ere[Aeua9y 8Te eixovx e%yv avT8 8%evi 5 - yaxt . 

xvrrKpvs yap rexpu^py/Ax xreyyopevore, [Ayre reoXei [Ayr i^tury raro reohTv, 

* ' . ... , 
npoireOyxe [aiv yxp ry xrroppyaei, on,—xv [Ay eyu errirpe-^u — rrpoo-ere'eiree c$e on —ax 

vnrpe^u—sreet ro ye vQpieQxt repos nvos xxi r 0 yasGyaOxi repos rms (xcrefieixv 

re yxp ytiy j 1 x 1 ro roinrov uvo[AotXpv, xxt $txxs ere xvru rroXXxs earyyov ) yxi^x repocr- 

srroieiro, 8$e e^iv yv nvx roixvryv e(fi exvru ypxtyyv rrpoat^e^xro, xxireep rov 

A vy8S'ov xxi ev nsrv mp cvvvuv. 1. 57 . 607 * E 8 . A. 

Most eminently exemplary , great, just, and humane. 

Patep.culus. —O rem di 6 tu non eminentem, fed folida veraque 
virtute atque utilitate maximam, experientia fuaviffimam, humanitate 
fingularem! Per omne belli Germanici Pannonicique tempus, nemo e 
nobis, gradumve noftrum aut praecedentibus aut fequentibus, imbecillus 
fuit; cujus falus ac valetudo non ita fuftentaretur Caefaris cura, tam- 
quam diftra&ilhmus ille tantorum oneriun mole huic uni negotio 









I 




14 

vacaret animus. Erat defiderantibus paratum jun&um vehiculum; 
lettica cjus publicata, cujus beneficium cum alii, turn ego fenfi. Jam 
medici, jam apparatus cibi, jam in hoc folum importatum inftrumen- 
tum balinei nullius non fuccurrit valetudini. domus tantum ac domes¬ 
tic! dearant; caeterum nihil, quod ab illls aut praeftari aut defiderari 
pofiet. Adjiciam illud, quod, quifquis illis temporibus interfuit, ut 
alia, quae retuli, agnofcet protinus. ii. 114. 

- Sepultaeque ac fitu obfitae juflitia, aequitas, induftria 

civitati redditae; acceflit magiflratibus au£loritas, fenatui majeflas, 
judiciis gravitas; ii. 126. 

. - . Cumque fit imperio maximus, exemplo major eft. 126. 

1 

V. Maximus. —Cujus caelefti providentia virtutes de quibus diclu~ 
rus fum, benigniflime foventur: Prol. ad Tib . 

Lib. v. cap. 1, De humanltate. 

Lib. vi. cap. 5, De juflitia. 

—- Princeps parenfque nofter.au£tor ac tutela in- 

■t » \ • * 

columitatis noftra?. ix. ii. 

Seneca. —-Quid aliorum tibi funera Caefarum referam? quos in 

j 

hoc mihi interim videtur violare fortuna, ut fie quoque generi 
humano profint, oftendentes, ne eos quidem, qui diis geniti deofque 
genituri dicantur, fic fuatn fortunam in poteftate habere, quemad- 
modum alienam. Divus Augujlus , amiflis liberis, nepotibus, exhaufla 
Caefarum turba, adoptione defertam domum fulfit. Tuiit tamen for- 
titer: tanquam ejus jam res ageretur cujus cum maxime intererat, de 
diis neminem queri. Tib. Ccefar et quem genuerat, et quern adopta- 

\ ' \ JAl % L 

verat, amifit: ipfe tamen pro roftris laudavit filium, ftetitque in con- 
fpe&u pofito corpore, interje£lo tantummodo velamento, quod pon- 
tificis oculos a funere arceret, et flente populo romano non flexit 
vultum: experiendum fe dedit Sejano ad latus ftanti, quam patienter 






15 


pofiet fuos perdere. Videfnc quanta copia virorum maxlmorum fit, 
quos non excepit hie omnia profternens cafus, in quos tot animi bona , 
tot ornamenta publice privatimque congcfta erant? 

Confol. ad Marclam c. 15. 

- - , Nomen Attici perire Ciceronis epiftolae non finunt.— 

Nihil illi profuifiet gener Agrippa, Tiberius progener, et Drufus nepos 
Inter tam magna nomina taceretur, nifi Cicero ilium applicuiflet. 

Epiji. 2 T. 

Suetonius* —Atque hsec eo notabiliora erant, quod ipfe in appel- 
landis venerandifque fingulis, et univerfis prope cxceflerat humani- 


tatis modum. iii. 29. 

Neque tam parvum quidquam, neque tam magnum publici priva- 

tique negotii fuit, de quo non ad P. C. referretur.Nunquam 

curiam nifi folus intravit: lexica quondam introlatus aeger, comites 

- ' • •_ ; v 

a fe removit. -—. 30. 


■ — Qasedam adverfus fententiam fuum decern! ne queftus 

quidem eft.Cum Senatusconfultum per difeeffionem forte 

£eret, tranfeuntem eum in alteram partem in qua pauciores erant, 
fecutus eft nemo. Csetera quoque non nifi per Magiftratus et jure 
ordinario agebantur: tanta Cofs. au&oritate ut Legati ex Africa 
adierint eos, querentes trahi fe a Csefare, ad quern mifli forent. 
Nec mirum, cum palam eflct ipfum quoque eifdem aflurgere et 
decedere via. —• 3 1 * 

.... Quorundam illuftriumexfequiasufque adrogumfrequen- 
tavit. Parem moderationem minoribus quoque et perfonis et rebus 
exhibuit: &c. 3 2 * 

. ..... — .. — Paullatim Principem exercuit, pneftititquc; etfi varium 
diu, commodiorem tamen fa?pius, et ad utilitates publicas proniorem. 
Ac primo eatenus interveniebat ne quid perperam fieret. Itaque et 











I 



eonftitutioncs quafdam fenatus refcidit: et Magifiratibus pro tribunal! 

cognofcentibus plerumque fe offerebat confiliarium, aflidebatque 

miflim vel ex adverfo in parte primori: et fi quein reorum elabi gratia 

rumor eflet, fubitus aderat, judicefque aut e piano, aut e quaefitoris 

tribunali, legum et religionis, et noxae de qua cognofcerent, admo- 

nebat: atque etiam fi qua in publicis moribus defidia aut mala con- 

• • • 

fuetudine labarent, corrigenda fufcepit. nl * 33 ’ 


___ Statimque revocante afiidua obteftatione populo, prop¬ 

ter cladem, qua apud Fidenas, fupra xx. hominum millia gladiatorio 
munere amphitheatri ruina perierant, tranfiit in continentem, potes- 
tatemque omnibus adeundi fui fecit; tanto magis quod ab urbe egredi 
ens, ne quis fe interpellaret, edixerat, ac toto itinere adeuntes fub- 

moverat. 4 a 

* 11 i V J- • * ‘ • * *• 

- Nec abftinuit confuetudine, quin tunc quoque inftans in 

% . - { 

medio triclinio, adftante li&ore, fingulos valere dicentes appellaret. 

—• 7 2 * 

Tacitus.— Tiberiumque ipfum viftoriarum fuarum, quaeque in 
toga per tot annos egregie feciflet, admonuit. Ann i. 12. 


... Egregium vita famaque quoad privatus vel in imperils 

fub Augufto fuit. ‘ 5 l * 

, -Congruens crediderim recenfere cceteras quoque reipub- 

licse partes, quibus modis ad earn diem liabitae fint: quando Tiberio 
mutati in deterius principals initium ille annus attulit. Jam primum 
publica negotia, et privatorum maxima, apud patres tra&abantur: 

dabaturque primoribus difierere:.fua confulibus, fua praetoribus 

fpecies. minorum quoque magiftratuum exercita poteftas; legefque, 
fi majeftatis quaeftio eximeretur, bono in ufu. Res fuas Caefar 

fpe&atifiimo cuique, quibusdam ignotis ex fama mandabat. iv. 6 











I 


ft 

IT 

- Nondum ea clades (at Fidenae) exoleverat, cum ignis 

violentia urbem ultra folitum adfecit, deufto monte Caelio. feralem- 
que annum ferebant et ominibus adverfis fufceptum principi confi- 
Jium abfentia?, &c. ni Caefar obviam iflet, tribuendo pecunias ex modo 
detrimenti. A&asque ei grates apud fenatum, ab inluftribus : fama- 

que apud populum, quia fine ambitione, aut proximorum precibus, 

* 

ignotos etiam et ultro accitos munificentia juverat. iv. 64. 

- Magifque fama quam vi, ftare res fuas. vi. 30. 

DtoN C.— f Xxy/<^x yxp es xvtov ^xvxvuv, vXe/^x es to xo/vov xvy/Xhtxe. vxvtoc, 
Iaev us e/ve/v tx ^Yifxotr/x Epyx, tx fxsv xvo/xo^o[xuv, tx Se EV/xoayJuv. voXXx St xxi 

VoXeTI XXI l^/UTX/S EVXpXUV, TUV TE @8XEVTUV <TVyV8S VEV0/XEV8S, J 1X1 fXYlXETl (AY&B 
fj8XEVE/V (HlX T8T eQeXoVTXS, EVX8Tt(JEV, 8 fXEVTO/ XX/ XXp/TUS XVTO EVO/E/, xXXx XXI 
StEypxipE T8S [xev viro xvEXyE/xs, T8S <$e xx/ tiro VTuyE/xs, oaoi (avi^evx xvty/s Aoy/cr/xov 
e/xotx xvo<$8vx/ eSvvxvto. vxv re o E^upsiro T/a/v, evOvs xxi ev to/s o^)9xX(a.o/s xvt8 

Y)p/QlAE/TO. EVE/^Y) yXp ETC/ Ttf Avy8S8 [KEyxXx EX, TUV T0/8TUV 01 ^OTY/pES XVTUV 

XVETE^VOVTO, £ E/VUS EtpvXxTTETO (AY) XXI £<£>’ EXVTtS T8T0 y/nx9xi. XXI TXVTX fXEVTOt 
•7TXVTX EX TUV VEVOfX/CrfXEVUV *7 TpOXO^UV E^XVXVX. 8TE yxp XVEXTE/VE ypYlfAXTUV EVEXX 

h^EvXy ute 8<j/xv t/vos tote ye e^yi^evitev, xXX 8^ sj; EVY/ps/xs r / vipyvpoXoynaEv 
A/fx/X/u yuv PnxTu ypvf^xTx vote xvtu vXe/u vxpx to TETxy^Evov ex ty/s AyvnTT8 y>s 
vpyji ve^xvti xvtevete/Xev on—“ KE/psaOxi /x8 tx vpoQxTx, xXX ax xvo£v- 

pEdOxi (3aXopKXi' 

K XI fXEVTOl XXI EVVp0(T0($0S xxi EWpocviyopos ixyvpus Y/V. T8S ySv @8Xevtxs 
O tQpoHS XO-VxfyaQxi XVTOV EXEXEVXEV, IVX fXY) U^l^UVTXl. TO, TE (TVfAVXV, TOTXVTY/V 

tV/E/XEIXV Y)(TXEl, U?E EVE/^YI VOTE 0/ P 0$lUV XpyOVTES EV/<>E/XXVTES T l XVTU, 8yWEypx\» 

I 

av TY) EV/TOXy) T8TO <$Y) TO VO(At'(o[JLEVOV , EVyXS XVTU V0/8(A,EV0l : fXETEVEfX^XTO fXEV U^XS 
CV8<$Y) US XXI XXXOV Ti SpXtTUV, eXQovTXS h 8$EV Se/VOV ElpyXTXTO, xXX' vvoypx4'Xv- 

TXS TO EvSeOV XVEVEfA'4'E. T8S TE X/EI xpyOVTXS US EV <$Y)lX0XpXTiX ET/[XX, XXI TO/S 

\ « - 

VVXTO/S XX/ VVXV/fXTO, OVTOTE TE XVT8S h/ZJV/^O/, T8T0 fXEV, EtT/OVTXS (tQxS VpOS TXS 
OvpxS E^E^EyETO, T8T0 $E, XXI XVS/OVTXS VTpOE'CJEfXZJEV, El TE VSOTE EZJl T8 (t/tys 
*xOfX/^ETO, 8$EVX 01 VTXpXX0X89EIV, 8% OVSUS faXtVTYlV, xXX* iVJWtX TtJV 'UJpWTUV, 


c 







18 

HU, tit Tt VuiS 'BUWiyvpiCrij T/ v - xl a ^° rottiTOrpOTJOV CLGyb'klOL'i TotS 

voKhots wspa^eatv eptMev, eXOuv av a<p eawepas wrpos rtva ruv Kataaptiuv, ruv wspos 

Ton xwpiois IXCIVOIS eS CC CrV[A<poiry<jai eht 3 OU8VTUV, evruvQx TCtS VVKTOCS tn;liXifyro. 

qzjus e% irotfAorxre xat arjovurare rots avOpuzsots evrvyyavetv OtVTU ytyvoiro. xat 
T8s ye ruv izsrsuv ayuvas e% otxtas xat avros ruv azsiKevOepuv rtvos zsoXXaxis eupa, 
ovnyi^uTu yap ezjt rets Ocas uzjyvrx, rys re Tigris ruv ewjtreXevruv avras evexa, xat 
T7>s ra mXyOds evxocr(Atas 3 rS re ervveopra^etv ctytci (toxeTv. a yap are eazs^aae wyore 
nrovsapzsav ruv roteruv acSev, ere h%av rtva 3 us xat cvoznvSuv rtvt 3 euyjtv. eru re 
ts rxavra taos xat ofAotos yv 3 uerr op^vt^yv rivx re cfo/xa eXevOepuOyvai wsore (3eXyQevros, 
fAV) zsporepov ovvezoamcrat , wrptv rov hcrzroryv avre xai wyetaOyvxt xat rviv rtpAyv 
XaCeiv, rots re eraipois 3 us fiev ev tSiuritx, cvvyvi xat yap StxafyjAevots a<p)i<Ti 
cvvyyvupt^ero, xat Oveat avveupra^e. voauvras re ewseoxezyrero, (Ayh{Atav <ppepav 

» 

t’aetO’uyofA.tvos. xat e<p evt ye nvt avruv reXevrycravrt rov ezjtrxfytov avros etrse, 

p. 608. 609. 

—— xat inertia (Drufuill-fcil.) xat il$ix xat $y(Aorta woWxxts. xat wore avru 
xat avrtxpvs woXXuv wapovruv etwev ort 3 * ( Zuvros [acv (au 3 e$ev are fitatov ad’ vQpt^txov 
*npa\ets av h n xat roX[Aycrys , eh reXevryaavrosyjpovov yap rivx auQpoverarx 
$ttyevero 3 xat e$e ruv aXXuv edevt aaeXyxtvetv yQtei, aXXa xat ervyves ewt reru 
exoXafy. xatrot ruv fieXevruv wore ewtrtfAiov n xara ruv aaurus £uvruv vo(AoOery» 
cOyvat eOeXyaavruv, payre n ra%as 3 xat wpoaewetwuv 3 on a^eivov s^iv t$tx rpowov 
rtva avres crwtypovifyiv, y xotvyv nat rtfAuptxv ewtOetvat. vvv (acv yap av ru (pioGu rvis 
atay^vvvts xat /aerpiurai rtva avruv , u$e xat haOetv ewtyeipwxi, av S’ awa\ 0 vopos 
two rvs (pvaeus exvtxvtOr), (AviSeva avre wportfAYiaeiv . xat ewei^y ye woWy ecrOrirt 
dXepyet xat avtipes avyyot {xatwep awayopevOev wporepov ) eyjpuvro t ^te[Ae{A^aro (acv 
eoeva, ace efyiAtuertv. verb ev wavwyvpet nvt yevo^eve } tpxtav [Axvhvviv eweveh. xax 
were exer etieis avruv aXXotov etrOniAa, XaQetv eroX[/.viae, ruv(f eru wavra, y^iyjpt ye 
xat 0 Tepi*.avixos efyt, eworet, (xerx yap rero vvyvx avruv (AercGxMev, etr ev <ppovuv 
p,ev erus awo wpurrts, us v^epov ^te^et^s, whxcrxfAevos h es oaov exetvos eQtu, ewet - 
fiywep eQectpevovru avrov rr> vtyeiAoveta eupa, etre xat wetyvxus (acv ev 3 e^oxet’Kas V 
ore T« avrayuvifti erypyOy.- p. 610. 

' 1 rats ev ry Aorta woXecrt rats vwo ra aeta^Ab xaxuOetaats . y^pyiAarx 

woKha (acv ex ruv tyopuv avuOy 3 woK7\x de xat wapa re TtGepie ehOy, ruv yap 


s 




aXXoTpiuy icryypus, fAsypt yc xxi tvv xXXvv xpcTvv t'irzTYi&Evo'iv, airtyoyLivos, (avTs 
rxs xXvpovopAixs, xs tives xvrZ avyycyhs cyovTcs xxteXittov, wpocrispAsyos, t:x[at;o\Xx 

CIS TE TXS WoXElS XXI TUS IUIUTXS XVVXliTXE, XXI HTE TipAVV, HTE C7TXIV0V U^EVX Z7? 

XVTCiS TpOiTE^EyETO. p. 614. D. 

/ 

' r °j te TrpuyiAx to xxrx tx ($eivxo-[axtx cixcrptxac, xxi ^tayiXixs xxi ttevtx* 
xoaixs fxvpixoxs Tco ^vpAocnu e^uxev, uar x-jtxs vts xv^puv (jtsXsvruv xtoxei tois 

<$EO(AEVOIS CS TplX ETV) EXOXVEKjOvVXl. p. 6^4. E. 

— — " Esi^s ^v r IxTuvia [aetx K v>vra nXxvrm wxTcvaxvros, o, rs T iCspis 'noXXx 
tvs ’noXcus c r rrtxXvcnv i u$t •tXevtOvvxi, xxi <nvpi iroXv vrXciu iszpi rc tov i 7 S' 7 ro'c$po(Aoy 
xxi nrzpi roy AncvTivov ctyQxpy). u$s Toy Ti£cpioy ^icryiXixs xxi Key txxotixs (Avpix^xs 
tois fy)^u 9 ciai ti xt? xi> t 5 davxi. p. 628. A. 

• , r f 

An eater of human flesh and a drinker of human Mood . 

Dion C .—T oaxvTVS «v tote tvs xxtxs'xitcus aavs, xxi [av^ xirxpvvcxo-Qxi 
TlVOS ^lyXfAEVH TO (A.y J ii XXI TWV axpxuiv XVTiS V^CCCS EfA^XyElV. p. 631. E. 

Suetonius. —Faflidit vinum, quia jam bibit ifte cruorem : 

Tam bibit hunc avide quam bibit ifte merum. 

The universal dispenser of the blessings of Peace . ' 

Paterculus. —Quando pax lsetior ? DifFufa in oiientis occiden- 
tifque traftus, et quicquid meridiano aut feptentrione finitur, pax 
Augufla per omnes terrarum orbis angulos nos a lalrociniorum metu 
fervat immunes. 11. 120 

PHILO. —tis yap ituv Taiov [aetx tvv rs TiCcpits K xiaxpos teXevtvv irapciXv 
i^OTX tvv r,yi[xoyixy <txtvs yvs xxi 9 aXx?cvs asixcrixsov xxi ewo/aov xxi 'rsx.cn tois 
py.EpZatV r,pi/.C&[AZVOV CIS TO ( TVfA^OVOy. Teg. Cldt C. p. 709. B. 

- TV v rs £tpnrn xxi tx tvs zipvvva ayxQx •napaa-y^vm xyjt tvs rs (3its teXevtvs 

x$Qovv xxi 7 jXncriw yj'pi xxi yvio^v. db. p 7 ^ 3 ’ 









20 


/ 



I 


% \ 


Suetonius. —Imprimis tuendae pads a graffaturis ac latrociniis 
feditionumque licentia curam habuit. Stationcs militum folito fre- 
quentiores difpofuit. Romce caflra conflituit, quibus Praetorians; 
cohortes, vagae ante id tempus, et per hofpitia difperfe, continerenter. 
Populares tumultus exortos graviffime cocrcuit; et ne orirentur 
fcdulo cavit. Cade, &c.—Cum Pollentina plebs, &c. iii. 37. 

Tacitus.— Nobis in arto, et inglorius labor immota quippe aut 
modice laceffita pax maeftee urbis res, et princeps proferendi in- 
curiofus erat. Ann. iv. 32. 


Permitted the worst of all civil wars to rage at Pome. 


Seneca. —Nofhi fasculi exempla non praeteribo. Sub Tiberio 
Ccefare fuit accufandi frequens et paene publica rabies, quae omni 
civili hello gravius togafcam civitatem confecit. Excipiebatur ebriorum 
fermo, fimplicitas jocantium nihil erat tutum: omnis faeviendi place- 
bat occabo. Nec jam reorum exfpedlabatur eventus, quum eflet 
nnus. Ccenabat Paulius praetorius in convivio quodam, imaginem 
Tiberii Caefaris habens, edtypam, et eminente gemma. Rem ineptif- 
fimam fccero, fi nunc verba qiuefiero, quemadmodnm dicam ilium 
matellam fumpfifle. Quod fadtum, fimul et Maro, ex notis illius 
temporis vefligatoribus, notavit. At fervus ejus cui nedlabantur in- 
iidiae, ei ebrio anulum extraxit. et cum Maro convivas teftaretur, ad- 
motam eHe imaginem obfcaenis, et jam fubfcriptioncm comnonerat : 
oflendit in manu fua fervus anulum. 1. iii. c. 26. de ben. 


Tacitu s. —Non alias magis anxia et pavens civitas, egens (agens ?) 
adverfum proximos, congreffus, colloquia, notae ignotaeque aures 
{aurai?) vitari: etiam muta atque inanima tedium et parietes circum- 
fpedlabantur. . v iv. 60. 


- Neque fenatus in eo cura an imperii extrema dehonefla- 

rentur: pavor internus occupaverat animos, &c. iv. 74. 


r 



'21 


i 






— - Inritatufque fuppliciis, cundtos qui carcere attinebantur 

accufati focietatis cum Sejano, necari jubet. Jacuit immenfa ftrages": 
omnis fexus, omnis a?tas: inluflres, ignobiles, difpeifi aut aggregate 
neque propinquis, aut amicis adliflere, inlachymare, ne vifere quidem 
diutius dabatur; fed circumjedfi cuflodes, et in maerorem cujufque 
intend, corpora putrefa&a adfedtabantur, dum in Tiberim trahercn- 
tur: ubi fluitantia, aut ripis adpulfa, non cremare quifquam, non 
contingere. interciderat fortis humanae commercium vi metus: quan- 
tumque fasvitia glifceret, miferatio arcebatur. vi. 19, 

Dion C — nxvTzs yap ot Ttvx Totxvvnv xinxv XaCovTzs, sy onus tnnhs, x\\x 
xxt (ZsXevtxi, onus otvfyss, aXha xxt ywotixes, es to OEaytuTinptov avv£u9svTo. 
xxi xxtx-^/yiQht9svtes, 01 fj.Ev zxet zxoXa^ovTo, 01 cis xxi xno rs Kant TuXts vno tuv 
$v)ytapyuv v> xxi tuv vnotTuv xxTExpr,pt.vt^ovTo : xxt es te tvv ayopxv rx aufuarx 
avruv anxvTuv zpptnTZTo, xxt ytzrx r£ro es tov noTafxov evz^xXKzto, p. 6jO> E. 

-- s yap fuovov ot xaTr>yopycravTzs Ttvuv zxptvovTo , aXXx xxt ot xaT£-^'/i<piorfxEvoi 

Ttvuv av9y\i<TxoyTo. st us s9 1 0 T i£eptos Ttvuv E(pziosTo } xXKx xxi nxatv avrots xxt 
aWvi'kuv ansypyro, st xXKov (3z£xtov (pt"Kov soevx zTyzv, a\?C zv tu tcru xxt to 

a^IXSV xxt TO XVXjXXpTy)TOV f TO, TE VTTOnTiVOV Ti XXI TO X$ZES, TTpOS TW TUV XyiXVUV 

EyxXnixxTuv avaxptcrtv, zytyvzro. p. 631. C. 

— - Toavrov yap nh% 9 os TUV TE xKhuV xxt TUV fisXsVTUV XITuXeTO, &»f£ TSS 
xpyOVTXS, TSS xX’npUTSS, TSS l*.EV ErpXTVyr.XOTXS, Eltl TptX, TSS VTtXTEVXOTXS, EOTi 

ET7i txs yyEfAOVEtxs tZv e 9 vuv, a?Topt% tuv otxos%o(/.zvuv xvtsct, xyZiv* 

I 1 P- 636. B* 

Query—If Tiberius was the caufe of all this civil ftrife why does 
Paterculus, in the 16th year of his reign, fpeak fo highly of him r 
Why does V. Maximus fay of him, after the death of Sejanus— 

Princeps parenfque nofier.auctorac tutela incolumitatis noftne? 

Why does Seneca fay of him—that he was fuperlatively great—that 
he had fo many good qualities, and—that he, at his death, went to 

D 2 


f 













the abode of the Gods ? And why does Dion lay, in two places, 
that the people thought that Tiberius knew nothing of the matter, 
and expe&ed that things would, after the death of Sejanus, be better? 
At page 629, A. B., he fays— oXtyov te wxw to QxpaZy riv, oaov e'£co te rsruv 

XxQeirmEl, XXI Toy T l^EfiOV YlTTlCtJTEpOV yEV'n<TEO‘9xt 7 rpOTE^OKOZ. TX TE yxp (TVy^Ev'/lKOTX 
gQkxiy es toy x^oXccXotx (ucTTEp 7 ra qnXst yiyvE<j9xC) ETpEirov , y.xt exeivov v koevos y) 
oXiyx'v rjTiMVTo. tx yxp uXeiovx, tx [xey vyyorixEvxt, tx os xxi xxovtx x.xTwvx^x.xaQxt 
npxt-xt, EXsyov .—And at p. 635 . C .—ooxhytes yxp 01 xvQpuwoi viro rS Zytxvv 

TtXYTX TX V.XT XVTUS TtpOTEpOY yiVC{J.E'JX XX 1 EXTTiaXVTES &&9riaE(T0Xl TOTE X. T. X. 

Overcome by the pressure of family afflictions. 

Paterculus.—Q uid, ut juvenes amitteret filios? Quid, ut ne- 
potem ex Drufo fuo ? Dolenda adhuc retulimus: veniendum ad 
erubefeenda eft. Quantis hoc triennium, M. Vinici, doloribus lace- 
ravit anianjm ejus ? Quamd'iu abftrufo, quod miferrimum eft, pedlus 
ejus flagravit incendio ? Quod ex nuru, quod ex nepote dolere , indig- 
nari, erubefeere coa&us eft? Cujus temporis segritudinem auxit 
mater eminentiftima, &c. ii* *30* 

Tacitus.—P rofedtio arto comitatu fuit.caeteri liberalibus 

ftudiis preediti, ferme Grseci, quorum fermonibus levarctur. 

Ann . iv. 58. 

- At Ccefar dedicatis per Campaniam templis, quanquam 

edi&o monuiftet, ne quis quietem ejus inrumperet, concurfufque oppi- 
danorum difpofito milite prohiberentur; perofus tamen municipia, et 
colonias, omniaque in continenti ftta, Capreas fe in infulam abdidit. 

„ Ann. iv. 67. 

Suetonius.—S ed orbatus utroque nlio &c.—feceftum Campanice 
petiit: conftanti et opinione et fermone pene omnium, quaft neque 
rediturus unquam, et cito mortem etiam obiturus: iii. 39. 










23 


—- Peragrata Campania ..Capreas fe contulit;. 

Statimque revocante affidua obteftatione populo, propter cladem, qua 
apud Fidenas,.tranfiit in continentem, poteflatemque omni¬ 

bus adeundi fui fecit; tanto magis quod ab urbe egrediens, ne quis fe 
interpellaret, edixerat, ac toto itinere adeuntes fubmoverat. iii. 40, 

Dion C. —xf a xxi efspj xevxi tivss xvrov ru/v Qpvivuv v'TuTtTEvaxv. a fxsvroi 

y.cci ovrus vxpxtppovsiv ex rara EVifEVETo. rot yxp xXKx xxt 7 raw ntxyrx oeoyrus 

Sevxei. x. r. A. 1 . 57. p. 618. E. 

* 

Negligent of the Gods but attentive to some one God . 

S. ' t r % 

Suetonius. —Vicina vero urbi oracula etiam dejicere conatus 
eft. iii. 63. 

-Circa Deos et religiones negligentior: quippe addidlus 

Mathematical: perfuafionifque plenus cun&a fato agi. —. 69. 

- Supremo natali die fuo Appollinem Temenitcm et am- 

plitudinis et artis eximise adve&um Syraculis, ut in bibliotheca novi 
templi poneretur, vidcrat per quietem affirmantem fibi—Non pofie 
fe ab ipfo dedicari. —. 74. 

Josephus. —Jofephus fays, in the beginning- of A. xviii. 7. 0 ., that 
Tiberius, the day before he died, prayed to the Gods of his country 
to be dire&ed in the choice of a fuccefTor, and, in the fequel of that 
fe&ion, he alfo fays, three times, that fome one God dire&ed him, 
according to his requeft, and that he obeyed the dire&ion of that one 
God , though contrary to his own with .—h Sofa te xxi @ 8 \vxrevs rxs > 

stvrts ‘Gti'UjLSzvxus ra ©fa to ezj xvtois xrjo<pxtv 8 [/Evov. 

N. B.— 1.—How contradi&ory the evidence of ancient writers on 
this point feems to be. 

Paterculus. —Sacravit parentem fuum Caefar, non imperio fed 
religione : non appellavit eum, fed fecit Deum. ii. 126. 


j 












-- Quam pia munificentia, fuperque bumanam evecta 

fidem, templum patri molitnr ? ii. 130. 

V. Maximus. —Deos enim reliquos accepimus, Carfares dedimus. 
Et quoniam initium a cultu Deorum petere in ammo eft, de con- 
ditione ejus fummatim difleram. Prol. ad Tib. 

Seneca. —Appiae vise curator eft: qua fcis et divum Auguftum et 
Tiberium Casfarem, ad Deos ifle. A[iocolocynt. CL C<es. 

Suetonius. —Peragrata Campania, cum Capua? Capitolium, Noise 
Templum Augufti, quam cauflam profe&ionis praetenderat, dedi- 
caflet, Capreas fe contulit; iii. 40. 

Tacitus. —San&os acceptofque numinibus Claudios: et augendam 
caerimoniam loco, in quo tantum in Principem bonorem Dii often- 
derint. » A. iv. 64. 

- At Caefar dedicatis per Campaniam templis. —. 67. 

JoSEPHUS .—rois •na.rpiots Qtois aviAsiov n voa^cc'jrov avrco ^>a<£ > a.i 
Vifu ra tvjv •nytiJLWicu) A. xviii. 7 * 

This Jofephus fays of Tiberius the day before he died. And, that 
it was fignified to him, by an omen, that he fhould appoint that fon, 
for his fucceflor, who fhould come firft to him in the morning. 

N. B.—2.—How contradictory the evidence of Jofephus and Taci¬ 
tus, concerning the time when Tiberius appointed a fucceflor, from 
that of Suetonius? Suetonius fays, iii. 76.—Teftamentum duplex 
ante biennium fecerat: alterum fua, alterum liberti manu, fed eodem 
exemplo: obfignaveratque etiam humillimorum fignis. Eo teftamento 
haeredes asquis partibus reliquit Caium ex Germanico, et Tiberium ex 
Drufo, nepotes; fubftituitque invicem. 






25 

A friend of Jews and the maintainer of Jewish Rites . 

Josephus.—H pw&a* o* o rsrpxpxvs, nrt f^syx yxp w rw T igepiN <p,Xtxs 
7 TposXQcov. A. xviii. 2. y, 

—— Aypi'n'jrxs .T tQspios Se aSsv evSoix&xs, rx rc xKKx xvreo ypxfyzi 

(piXocvOpurwx jspcopsvos, sti ch x xi ? £lv ^oan^xivuv ztu tco ervov ettxvyixeiv etti txs 
K xTrpsxs. znru oe x^ixnirxt, (Arjhv vQzXav rs sv tois ypot{jL[Axaiv 7rpoQvfji.it, ri<77rx(e- 
ro XXI eJ'EViQ. _ > h' $ 


N. B. Jofephus alfo fays that Tiberius reprimanded Pilate for at¬ 
tempting to infringe the cuftoms of the Jews.—And, that he permitted 

them again to keep the facred veftments. A. xviii. 5. y. 

* / 


Tacitus.—S ub Tiberio quies. 


Hijl. V. 9. 


John. —Ye have a cuftom that I fhould releafe unto you one at 

the Pahover. xviii. 39. 

* , 

-Whofoever maketh himfelf a king fpeaketh againft Caefar 

—that is, Tiberius. xix. 12. 

t 

-- We have no king but Casfar. —. 15, 

Luke. —I perfecuted even unto ftrange cities. Afts. xxvi. 11. 


N. B. According to Jofephus, B. i. 24. / 3 . Auguftus feems to have 
conferred this favor on Herod.—And who, but Auguftus, could have 
granted them the privilege of demanding yearly one at the Palfover ? 
Tiberius, however, muft have continued both thofe cuftoms. 


A hearer of the Law and a partial doer of it. 


Suetonius.— Diogenes Grammaticus difputare Sabbatis Rhodi 
folitus, venientem, ut fe extra ordinem audiret, non admiferat; ac 
per fervulum fuum in [ejitimum diem diftulerat. iii. 32. 

9 > 

Quinctilian. —Theodorus Gadareus, qui fe did maluit Rhodi¬ 
um : quern ftudiofe audiiTe, cum in earn infulam feceftiftet Tiberius. 

1. iii. c. 1. 



I 





26 


N. B. Quintilian, 1 . v. c. 13, reprefents this celebrated teacher of 
Gadara as the leader of a fet.—And fo does Strabo, 1 . xiii. xvi.— 

T* * 

M. Seneca Controv. ix. p. 103. introduces Syriacus as fpeaking thus to 
Niger—-Priraum non apud eundem pneceptorem fluduimus. Tu 
Appollodorum habuifti, cui femper narrare placet: ego Theodorum 
cui non femper. 

Agrippa. —In his letter to Caius, he reminded him, that Augus¬ 
tus had, at his own expence, ordered a bull and two lambs to be offer¬ 
ed daily to the mofl high God.—This facrifice, fays he, has been con¬ 
tinued to the prefent time —xi xxi vvv ttjire\uvrati ,—Tiberius mufl, 

of courfe, alfo have continued this cuflom. 

Ep'iji. ad Caium. p. 801. F, 

«— n Ss 0 trspos era 'XxitTtcs 'liGzptos Kxiaxp ; ayj Txtnx (pxivtTxt TTporipn^zvos) 
tv y xp rptaiv xxi zixoaiv treertv ois xvToxpxTup zyzvzTo t»jv xxtx to izpov zxy.7ixis~u v 
ypovuv Trxpx^z^o(Atvviv Opviaxzixv ETypvxTEv. p, yqq, F. 

Philo. —Of Auguflus he fays—he had fo great a reverence for our 
holy worfhip, that all his domejlics , after his example, made prefents 
to our temple.—He mentions the daily facrifices, which, he fays, are 
ftill continued— Tpoixuv ovtus xvToxpxToptxuv .—And after having 

O 

thus extolled the piety of Auguflus, he fubjoins— TO y 

XVTOV Tpozjov. Leg. p. 785. 

/ 

Remarkably inquisitive about Futurity . 

Tacitus. Ja£tis tamen vocibus per quas intelligeretur providus 
futurorum. •• Ann. vi. 46. 

Josephus. —7 rxpov 7 xp xv xvtu Xvnys xmXKxy^tvu tzXzvtZv xfJixQtx tZv 
taoptvwv, hx<p 9 itpta$xt tu wpotyvuKus 7"/jy to-opem ^vpjyixv tuv QiXtxtuv teXzvtxv. 

A, xviii. 7* 0. 


/ 


27 


By the evidence of Tacitus it appears, that Tiberius, though, as 
he fays, a fatalift, was, at his laft hour, concerned about futurity.— 
And, by that of Jofephus, it appears, that Tiberius, though he had, 
a day or two before his death, prayed to be directed which of his two 
grandfons he thou Id appoint for his fucceffor, was very much con¬ 
cerned at the dicition, but did as he was dire&ed.—How differently 

do tliofe five hiflorians—Philo, Jofephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and 

\ 

Dion C., fpeak of the conduct of Tiberius on this occation—of the 
time when he thought of appointing a fuccetlor—and—of the manner 
in which he difpofed of the young Tiberius ?—Tacitus feems to fay 
that he did not think of appointing a fucceffor till a few days before 
he died, and, that he then, being unable to come to a determination 
on the point, left the decifion of it to fate. Jofephus fays, that he, 
a day or two before he died, prayed to his God, to be dire&ed 
whether he fhould leave Caius or Tiberius his fucceffor, and that he 
was fo dire£ted, that though the decifion was contrary to his with, 
yet he complied with it, and only appointed Caius.—The other 
three, on the contrary, fay that he appointed both Caius and Tibe¬ 
rius. Dion fays, p. 636. A., that it was well known, nearly four 
years before his death, that he very readily— x?/asvus —intended to 
leave Caius his fucceilor, and, in conjunfjtion with Tiberius. Sueto¬ 
nius fays, iii. 76.,—Teftamentum duplex ante biennium fecerat: 
alterum fua, alterum liberti manu,, fed eodem exemplo: obfigna- 
veratque etiam humiilimorum fignis. .Eo teftamento hceredes aequis 
partibus reliquit, Caium ex Germanico, et Tiberium ex Drufo, 
nepotes: fubflituitque invicem. This will Dion fays, 1 . 59. init., 
Caius fent to the Senate, by Macro, and took care to have it invali¬ 
dated.—And, that he, by difregarding the confideration of futurity, 
might have died in peace.—Jofephus alfo tells 11s, that Tiberius fore¬ 
warned Caius that the Gods would avenge the murder of his grand- 
fon Tiberius. E 










28 


A believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ . 

V, Maximus. —Quod cetera divinitas opinione colligitur: tua 
[irafenti fide paterno avitoque fideri par videtur. Prol. ad. 1 ib 

Query—Would any author have prefumed to fpeak to any Auto¬ 
crat, who had publicly notified his abhorrence of his being thought a 
God, of his inherent divinity ? If V. M. does mean to do this, what 
Can he have meant by—proefenti fide ? 

Paterculus. —Si aut natura patitur, aut mediocritas recipit 
hominum, apud aures Deorum de his queri; quid hie meruit ? 

ii. 130. 

* 

In the fentence immediately preceding, it fhould be obferved, 
Paterculus fpeaks of a levy which Tiberius was then making—and— 
without cauiing any uneafinefs—Quanta cum quiete hominum, rem 
perpetui praecipuique timoris, fupplementum, fine trepidatione de¬ 
lectus providet?—Now when did he make this levy, if not in the 
fixteenth year of his reign? For Paterculus, we fee, ufes, not the 
paft tenfe of the verb, but the prefent— -[irovldct .—That he had no 
occafion to make it, before the eleventh year of his reign, we find, 
by Tacitus, A. iv. 32,—Nobis in arto, et inglorius labor. Immota 
quippe aut modice laceflita pax, See. —That he muff: have made It, 
after the fourteenth, we alfo find, by the fame author, iv. 74,— 
Clarum inde inter Germanos Frifium nomen: diflimulante Tiberio 
damna, ne cui bellum permitteret.—That he made it more than a 
year after he refided at Capreae, we may prefume, becaufe Paterculus 
had, immediately before, fpoken of his beneficence to the fufFerers by 
the fire that happened on Mount Ccelius.—And—that he made it, 
not before the fixteenth year of his reign, why fhould we not con¬ 
clude for the reafon above afiigned ?—But for what reafon did he 
make it? Suetonius, we find, fays, iii. 37, that he, for fomereafon, 
Ilationed the militaiy, at lefs intervals than ufual, throughout Italy, 

% 


/ 




20 

\ * ^ 

but of any levy he fays not a word—oil the contrary, he feems to fay 
that he rendered fuch a ftep unneceffary—that he was very intent on 
preferring the peace from being difturbed by banditti and depredators, 
and the lawlefs—that he punifhed rioters moft feverely—that he put 
a flop to foreign commotions by difcreet negociations; and that he 
never after undertook any foreign expedition.—Was it to put a flop 
to that internal alarm which caufed fo much anxiety at Rome?—If fo, 
he could never, as fome have fuppofed, have encouraged it.—Was it 
to oppofe Sejanus? Dion fays, 1 . 58. p. 623. A., that Sejanus was 
then every thing with the Senate, the people, and the guards, and 
that Tiberius was next to nothing.—Belides—Suetonius fays, iii. 65, 
that he fupprefled Sejanus rather by craft and fubtilty than by 
any princely means. Why then fhould we not fuppofe that he mull 
have made it after the introduction of Chriftianity, when the un¬ 
believers were fo exafperated again!! believers—and—that this new 
levy conlifted of Chriftian foldiers ? Does not Dion feem to acknow¬ 
ledge fomething like this, 1 . 58. p, 628. E., where he fays that the 
military, exafperated at finding that noCturnal guards, more in the 
faith of the Emperor, were employed —01 n>x.ro<pvXxx.is o-^y is mv r» 
xvroxe&Topos Tr/f/v v^in^'ncrstv —became incendiaries and depredators ? 

But the chief thing to be confidered is whether this levy is any 
way connected with this complaint to the Gods of fome Gods ? By 
the expreftion, in this fentence—de his queri; it fhould feem that 
thofe fentences are connected. What then is the meaning of this ? 
In vain have the learned endeavoured to explain this paflage, they 
have not been able, even with the help of various readings, which 
they quote abundantly, and among the reft, the following—De Deo 
cum Deis queri—Apud aures Deorum Deis queri—Auribus Deorum 
de dis queri—Audeo cum deis queri.—Now if the firft pf thofe 
various readings fhould happen to be the right one, what God could 

E 2 


1 





he have meant? Had the God of the Jews ever given the Romans 
caufe to complain ? Why then fhould we not fufpe£t that he may 
have meant the myflerjous Trinity of Chriftians ? Or, if any of the 
other three fhould happen to be the right one, why fhould we not 
fufpedt that he improperly fpeaks of him as a plurality of Gods? 

Seneca, —His inflin&us, abflinere animalibus coepi: et anno 
pera&o non tantum facilis erat mihi confuefudo, fed dulcis. Agilio- 
rem mihi animum efle credebam: nec tibi hodie affirmaverim, an 
ftierit Quaeris, quomodo defierim ? In Tiberii Caefaris principatum 
juventae tempus inciderat: allenigenarum facra movcbantur: fed inter 
argumenta fuperjiitionis ponebantur, quorumdcim animaliutn abflinentia. 
Patre itaque meo rogante, qui non calumniam timebat, fed philo- 
fophiam oderat, ad priftinam confuetudinem redii: nec difliculter 
mihi, ut inciperem melius ccenare, perfuafit. Ep. cviii. p. 635. 

Now why were the facred rites of other nations difcufled by the 
Senate, and in what year of Tiberius? Was it not the euftom of the 
Romans to adopt the Gods of other nations? And did they not know 
that the religion of the Jews, who chiefly ufed to abflain from fome 
forts of meats, was fecured by compaft at the depofition of Archelaus? 
Did they not know that Julius Caefar, Auguflus, Agrippa, and Tibe¬ 
rius had always encouraged them in the exercife of it, even at Rome ? 
That they had favored them with the moll extraordinary privileges ? 
Did they not know that Auguflus had contributed yearly a large fum 
towards defraying the expence of their facrifices? That moft of his 
lioufehold had followed his example ? Did they not know that Tibe¬ 
rius continued the fame yearly contribution ? That he, before the 
death of our Lord, reprimanded Pilate for attempting to profane the 
fan£lity of the temple ? Was not Livia acquainted with Salome ?— 
Antonia with Berenice? And Drufus with Agrippa? Why then 
fhould we fuppofe that the facred rites of the Jews were, at any time, 




31 

taken under confideration ? Tacitus, we however find, tells us that 
they were, and in the fifth of Tiberius. And Lipfius, takes it for 
granted, that this was the year meant by Seneca. But why this re¬ 
port of Tacitus fhould be taken in preference to that of Philo, and 
Jofephus, and of Suetonius too, who, fpeaking of the fame event, 
fay that it took place, after the death of our Lord, or, about the 
time that Tiberius abolifhed all the afyla, we cannot fee. By the 
report of Jofephus indeed, it appears, that Agrippa muft have been 
then refident at Rome, and in high favor with Drufus. But is it not 
rather more probable, that by this, Seneca alludes to what happened 
in the eighth or ninth year, when fays Tacitus, iii. 60., the Senate in- 
fpe&ed the religions of the very Gods—introfpexit ipforum numinum 
religiones? The only obje&ion which can be made to this fuppofition, 
is, that the abufe of afyla was the caufe of this enquiry; and, that it 
does not appear that any religion was then calumniated, and efpecially 
for abftaining from certain forts of meats; whereas, in this cafe, it 
feems, the reafon was becaufe fome fuperftitioufly abftained from 
meats, and feemingly through a fpirit of philofophy to which fome 
calumny was attached. A philofophy which the father of Seneca, 
who feems by his own account, 1 . ii. Controv., and by his fon’s ac¬ 
count, Confol. ad Helviam. c. 16., to have had no prejudice againft 
philofophy, hated, and, for that reafon perhaps dilfuaded his fon 
from abftaining from meats.—Neither of thofe events, then, mention¬ 
ed by Tacitus, feems to anfwer the defcription of this here mentioned 
by Seneca. 

Let us now then proceed to confider whether this event does not 
appear to be the fame as that mentioned by Suetonius, Philo, and 
Jofephus, when external ceremonies in general, and the rites of 
yEgytians and Jews, and fimilar Sectaries, were fupprefted at Rome, 
that is, a year or two after the death of our Lord. 


A- 



I 


32 

v v 

% 

Now that the Jews, the only people that abftained from meats, 
fhould have been expelled from Rome, in the reign of Tiberius, for 
exercifing their religion, is very improbable, not only becaufe he was 
much attached to them, but alfo becaufe they enjoyed the right by 
compact with Auguftus, and Tiberius held all his a£ls inviolable: 
befides—the fuppofition refts only on the report of Suetonius, for neither 
Philo nor Jofephus fay it—indeed, they aftign a \ery different reafon 
for their expulfion. Philo does not fay that they were then expelled 
for their fuperftition, but for their flrong attachment to Tiberius.— 
And Jofephus fays, that they were expelled for the mifconduft of a 
pretended Rabbi, and two or three other vagabonds who had been 
driven from their own country. That this, however, could not have 
been the time here alluded to by Seneca, may be inferred from his 
faying that he perfevered in the obfervance of tins fuperftitious cere*, 
mony a year after the enquiry was made. This event then does not 
feem to correfpond with that mentioned by Seneca, any more than 
thofe two mentioned by Tacitus. Befides—that Seneca was not at Rome 
in the 17th year of Tiberius appears from the lad: chap, of hisConfol. 
ad. Helviam, where he fays, that his aunt loft her hufband (Vetrafius 
Pollio) as he was returning from the pra?fe£lure of Egypt, where he 
had been fixteen years, that is, from the return of yEmilius Re&us, 
who as Dion fays, 1 . 57. 608. D., was recalled the firft of Tiberius, 
u. c. 767.—And, that he was then, with them, a witncfs of it. 

What then if we fhould fuppofe that thofe facra alienigenarum 
were agitated, at the fame time as Tiberius firft introduced chriftianity 
at Rome, or, when, as Tertullian, Eufebius, and Jerom fay, he re¬ 
commended Chrift to the Senate, as a God, that is, as it feems, in the 
fourteenth year of his reign, for then, the interjius pavor happened,— 
then the Senate went to the coaft of Campania to defire to be favored 
with an interview with him, but were not—and, then, he, for the firft 
time, feems not to have been willing to venture among them. About 




•» 


33 


three years after this, the graviffimum exitium, or, execrabilis fuper- 
ilitio, which crept in under the prote&ion of Tiberius, was again re- 
prefled, that is, when the Jews and fimilar Sectaries or Chriftians were 
expelled from Rome. That all this is not far from the truth, why 
fhould we not infer from that expreftion—anno peradto—in the paf- 
fage above quoted from Seneca ?—And, from that other—fed inter 
argumenta fuperftitionis ponebatur, quorumdam animalium abftinen- 
tia? For we know that fome evil difpofed perfons commanded ' 
Chriftians to abftain from meats, i. Tim. iv. I., that their religion 
was faid to be a deftru&ive fuperftition. 

Seneca. —Cum interim ufque eo fceleratijfimts gentis confuetudo 
convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta fit: vifti viflorlbus leges 
dederunt. Contra . Superjlitiones. 

This quotation is fuppofed to be from a work of Seneca the younger, 
and, to be fpoken of Jews, but this does not feem to be at all likely, 
becaufe he could not but have known that Auguftus, Tiberius, Caius, 
and Claudius patronized them: and becaufe he fays of them, not only, 
when, in the mean time, their pra&ice fo prevailed—and—that they 
were, even then, fpread over all countries—but, that they had been, 
before the death of Nero, conquered, and had conquered their con- 

/ 

querors. Befides, Auguflin, who, vi. 11, quotes this paflage, fays, we 
find, in two places of that chap., that the author, in the context, fpeaky 
of their facraments. —Hie inter alias civilis theologiae fuperftitiones re- 
prehendit etiam facramenta judaeorum, et maxime fabbata: &c.—And, 
then again, immediately after he has adduced the above quotation, 

t 

he fubjoins the following remark—Mirabatur hasc dicens, et quid 
divinitus ageretur, ignorans. Subjecit plane fententiam qua fignifi- 
caret, quid illorum facramentorum ratione fentiret. Ait enim:—Why 
then fhould we not fuppofe, for thofe reafons, that it is rather likely 
that he means Chriftians ? Of this, fays Lipfius, there can be no 





34 


doubt. But would Seneca, the younger, who, in his youth, for a 
year, abftained, in compliance with a certain fuperftition, from eating 
certain forts of meats, and who is faid, by fo many ecclefiaftical 
writers, to have been a Chriftian, have faid, at any time, and ef- 
pecially in the latter part of his life, of Chriftians—that they were the 
molt wicked of all people?—Again. If Seneca, the younger, was 
the author of this work, and here fpeaks of Chriftians, when had 
they, before he died, been conquered ? Was it before, or after, 
they had been received every where ? Was It not before, and at 
Rome only? When we conftder what Tacitus fays of the fuppreftion 
of the execrabilis fuperftititio, and, of its having, afterwards burft 
forth, not only in Judea, but at Rome; and, alfo what he fays of 
the fuppreftion of the gravLTmum exitium, and of its having, after¬ 
wards, blazed out, and overcome every thing, who can doubt, that 
Seneca, or whoever was the author of this work, alludes to this by— 
fceleratiftimae gentis confuetudo—and, by vi&i vi&oribus leges dederc ? 
Now if he does, can we fupnofe, that Seneca would have fpoken 
of it forty years after it happened, as having happened jam> and, be¬ 
fore they had been conquered, and had conquered their conquerors ? 
Or, that he was but a little more than twenty when he faid it ? Is it 
not then very likely that Seneca jun. did not write it ? And, on the 
other hand, when we confider that Seneca fen. endeavoured to diftuade 
his fon from conforming with the fuperftition of abftaining from 
meats, and, becaufe he hated the philofophy, is it not very likely 
that he was the author of it? Tow if Seneca fen. was the author of 
this work, we have ftill Wronger evidence that he could not have 
meant Jews, and that he could not but have meant Chriftians.— 
Would he have fpoken thus of the religion of the Jews, knowing how 
it had been patronized both by Auguftus and by Tiberius? Could he 
have faid, before the death of Tiberius, (for he died before Tiberius) 
that the Jews had been conquered, and, that they had given laws to 


I 


l 


36 

their conquerors ? Was it any news to the Romans that they had 
been every where received ? Who then can doubt but that he was 
the author of this work, and that he meant Chriftians ? Now if he 
did mean Chriftians, we find that the Chriftian religion, was, before 
his death, that is, before the death of Tiberius, received in every 
country,-—that Chriftians had been conquered, and were even then 
conquerors, and gave laws to their conquerors* 

Seneca Sen.—Hie eftCorvus, quiquum tentaret fcholam, Roma;, 
fifmmo till , qm Jud<?os fubegerat , declamavit controverfiam, de ea, qua; 
apud matronas difterebat, liberos non efte tollendos, et ob hoc accu- 
fatur Reip. lcefce. In hac controverfia, fententia ejus ha;c ridebatur. 
Inter pyxides et redolentis animoe medicamina conftitit mytrata 
concio. Suas. ii. p. 24. 

In all the foregoing part of this ii. Suas. Seneca introduces feveral 
learned men celebrating the greatnefs of the reliftance made by the 
Spartans, at Thermopylae, under Leonidas, to Xerxes, who, it feems, 
defied the Gods. At the end of it, he adverts, and feemingly abruptly, 
to the attempt ofCorvus to raife a fchool to that eminent commander, 
who fubdued the Jews. How this is connected with the main fub- 
je£t of this Suaforia—viz. the oppofition which the Spartans alone 
made to Xerxes, at Thermopylae, it is not eafy to difeover : but fo, 
it feems, it is fuppofed to be. Let us try to difeover, if this account 
ofCorvus be really fo abruptly introduced as it appears to be. 

Corvus attempted to fet Up a fchool, at Rome, and, to that moft 
eminent perfon who had fubdued the Jews. What fort of a fchool 
was this ? And, who was this moft eminent perfon ?—Pompey, fays 
the annotator. But was he the only conqueror of the Jews? Was not 
Anthony after him? Was Pompey entitled—ille fummus—the moft; 
eminent ? Was he more eminent than either Auguftus or Anthony? 


F 




1 


36 


l 


And admitting that Pompey was the moft eminent fubduer of the 
Jews, why fhould a fchool have been eftablifhed to him, and, feem- 
ingly, on that account ? What fort of a fchool can we fuppofe this 
to have been ? Does not all this feem to point out the neceflity of 
looking out for a very different, and ftill more eminent conqueror ? 
one who could, with a much lefs number of followers than thofe who 
fell with Leonidas, effect a much more extenfive conqueft ?— 
What then if we turn our eyes to the greateft of all great captains, 
Jefus Chrift, who, with an inconfiderable party of unarmed followers, 
obtained a much greater victory over the world ? That it is not 
altogether improbable that Seneca may have meant to allude to this 
moft eminent conqueror, rather than to Pompey, why fhould we not 
conclude from what Seneca had before fuppofed Leonidas to have faid 
of the vain attempt of Xerxes—viz. ponat fane contra coelum aftra—• 
commilitones Deos habeo. 

But though Seneca may not be allowed to have here thought of 
contrafting thofe two celebrated victories, obtained by fo few com¬ 
batants, in a good caufe, over an immenfe hoft of aflailants—yet, if 
it be allowed that he meant, by what he fays in this quotation, to 
allude to this then recent victory obained by this moft eminent con¬ 
queror, we begin to perceive why Corvus fhould have thought of 
eftablifhing a fchool to him, and why he was accufed of Reip. lasfae, 
for having contended, in that fchool, before an audience of motherly 
women, that their children ought not to be brought up—that is, as 
we fuppofe, as ufual. 

-Sabinus Clodius, in quern uno die et Graece et Latine 

declamantem multa urbane di<fta funt. Dixit Haterius quibufdam 
querentibus, pufillas mercedes eum accepifle, cum duas res doceret, 

i . 

* Rectius habebo —et castra , ex conjectura et veteribus libr‘i9 tribus.— 
Vutgati enim astra. Alludit oi fallor ad y^ywro^^on Cyclopum, qui cum 
Piii bella gereutQs, &c. 


i 



I 


37 

nunquam magnas mercedes accepifie eos qui tp^nv^xroi docerent. 

L. iv. Controv. 26. p. 183. 

L. ix. C ■ . . . p. 266. 

What were thofe teachers of ip^mv^xrx 9 or, interpretations ? Where 
elfe, in the works of the Roman or Greek writers do we read of them, 

1 V 

but in one or two of the writings of Paul ? If they taught extraor¬ 
dinary things, ought they not to have been extraordinarily rewarded ? 
And yet we find they were not rewarded as well as others. 

Thofe teachers of tp^nvptxrx, it may not be amifs to obferve, 

■» 

appear to have followed their profefiion before the death of Seneca, 
that is, before the death of Tiberius, and even before the death of 
Sejanus, for Sabinus, we are told, was, about that time, imprifoned. 

Tacit us. -^-Haud pigebit referre in Falanio et Rubrio praetentata 
criminal ut quibus initiis, quanta arte Tiberii, graviflimum exitium 
irrepferit, dein reprefium fit, pofiremo arferit, cun&aque corripuerit, 
nofcatur. Ann . i. 73. 

Here we are told of fome crimes, committed by two Roman 
knights, which were hard to be found, by dete£ling which he pro- 
mifes to let us know how a certain mojl grievous by the no little 

artifice of Tiberius , at firfi> crcjit in: how it was then reprefled, and 
then again blazed forth, and overcame every thing. 

Now what were thofe groped for crimes ? And how fo intimately 
conne&ed with this mofl grievous peft, that the bare mention of thofe, 
would, of courfe, lead to a knowledge of this ? What mofl grievous 
peft did Tiberius, with no little contrivance, at firft, introduce ? And 
in what part of his reign ? Is it not rather ftrange that neither V. Maxi¬ 
mus, nor Paterculus, nor either of the Senecas, nor Suetonius, nor 
cither of the JeWifh writers, nor Dion C., mentions his having done it ? 


F 2 






38 


Nor, any fuch peft having been introduced? In order to get fomo 
infight into the nature of this undefcribed moft frightful phenomenon, 
let us hear what Tacitus here fays of thofe crimes of darkness which 
lie tells us will lead us to a knowledge of it—for no where elfe does 
he fpeak of them. 

In this chap., we find, he fpeaks of a certain crime or two of each 
of thofe knights, but then there was not the lead occafion to grope 
for any of them, for they w'ere, by his own account, manifefl to 
every body. To Falanius, he fays, that it was objected, that he had 
admitted, among the worfhippers of Auguftus, who, he fays, aflembled 
in every houfe , as a fort of collegiate body, one Caffius, a mimic, and 
of a difgufting perfon.—And alfo that he had difpofed of, together 
with a garden, a ftatue of Auguftus.—Thefe were the two charges 
againft Falanius. To Rubrius—that he had taken a falfe oath by 
Auguftus. But were either of thofe a crime of darknefs ? Or, will 
they lead us to a knowledge of this moft grievous peft, which Tibe¬ 
rius, fo artfully, introduced? Does Tacitus, in the fequel, give us 
any encouragement to think fo? As foon, continues he, as Tiberius 
knew it, he wrote to the confuls an apology for each of them. In 
which, after having obferved that heaven was not decreed to Auguftus 
for the deftru£tion of any one, he vindicated Falanius, by faying that 
Caffius, the aftor, ufed, as others of the fame way of life, to be 
prefent at the fports, which his mother had confecrated to the memory 
of Auguftus: And, that it was not contrary to religion, to dilpofe 
of his effigies, with gardens or houfes, anymore than to difpofe of 
thofe of &nj other Deities. And Rubrius, by faying that he had corn- 
mitted no greater offence than if he had committed it againft Jupiter. 

* <s * 1 ^ * - *. - -l ^ 

Offences againft the Gods wer« only to be punifhed by the Gods. 

* \' ■ ■ ' * ■ • 

. , ... V' 

If now thofe crimes were fo very notorious, and Tiberius did not 
thjnk that they Were crimes, at leaft cognizable by man, why vyould 


/ 




39 


\ 


Tacitus have it thought that they were works of darknefs, and that the 
bare fpecification of them would tend to elucidate this moft grievous 
peft, and as furreptitioufly introduced by the no little artifice of Tibe¬ 
rius ? Surely, if Tacitus meant no more than what he here fays, he 
appears to have rendered his own teftimony queftionable. And, 
inftead of rendering it credible that Tiberius introduced this moft 
grievous peft, to have faid what makes not a little againfl the fup- 
pofition. 

But did Tacitus here mean to fay all that he had to fay of this 
matter? And that thofe crimes were committed in the fecond year 
of Tiberius? If he did mean to fay this, may we not fuppofe that 
Tiberius introduced this graviflimum exitium, foon after? But how can 
we fuppofe this when we recoiled what Tacitus fays in two or three 
places of his iv. book ? In the firft chap. he fays that every thing 
was well managed by Tiberius till the ninth year of his reign, and, 
that he then began to be cruel himfelf, or to permit others to be fo. 
But however cruel he may then be fuppofed to have begun to „be, it 
is pretty plain, from what Tacitus again fays, c. 32., that he could 
npt have introduced this grayiftmium exitium before the thirteenth 
year of his reign was pretty well ended, for he there complains, that 
he had till that time only a contracted and inglorious talk, that the 
peace of the empire was fixed, or, at moft, but little disturbed, that 
the affairs of Rome were (not furely mournful, unlefs on account of 
the fall of the Amphitheatre, at Fidenae, and the burning of a con- 
Inferable part of the city,) but dull, or uninterefting.«—And after 
having faid this, he propofes to tell us of what advantage it may be 
to contemplate this even furface of things.—“ Yet it will not be ufe- 
lefs to infpeCt clofely that evep furface from which the grcatefl com¬ 
motions often arife.”—Non tamen fine ufu fuerit introfpicere ilia 
primo aipeClu levia, ex queis magnarum faepe rerum motus oriuntur. 
Jfow after having faid all this in the 32 chapter who would have 





I 


40 

cxpe&ed to find him faying in the next, what appears to be of a very 
different tendency ? In that chap, he proceeds to obferve how much 
more interefting the works of former writers muft be fuppofed to be 
than his who had nothing more to record than—cruel mandates, con¬ 
tinued accufations, fallacious friendfhips, the dejlruttion of innocent 
fierfons, and fuch like tranfa&ions. Of all this, it fhould be obferved, 
he complains, but a little before Tiberius retired from Rome, which 
Hep, he would have us to believe, he was compelled to take in order 
to avoid being a witnefs of the domineering pretenfions of his mother, 
who was then near ninety, and, as the learned, he alfo obferves, 
thought never to return, though by what he fays, chap. 66, the 
Senate was of a very different opinion. Indeed, if it was generally 
thought that he would never return, why fhould the people, as Sue¬ 
tonius fays, iii. 40, attempt to recall him, from Cajtrea , by a con¬ 
tinued importunity, when the Amphitheatre, at Fidenae, fell? 

Again—that Tiberius was, by no means likely to have encouraged 
any of thofe evils, before the end of the thirteenth year of his reign, 
is evident from what Tacitus fays, iv. 62, of his humane conduct to 
the fufferers at Fidensej—and alfo, 64, to the fufferers at Rome, when, 
a little after, a great part of the city was burnt;—and, from the re¬ 
ception which he met with from the people, on the former occafion, 
and from the Sepate, on the latter;—and from the hopor, which, he 
fays, the Gods then fhewed him. And that Tiberius had not, at that 
time, begun to encourage acc’ufers, in particular, is evident, from 
what he fays, in chap. 66, of the accufation of his kinfman Varus 
Quin£Hliu$, and of the Senate’s having deferred to pafs fentence op 
him till the arrival of Tiberius, who, as he acknowledges, was then 
the only fuffugium in fuch hard cafes. Indeed if he was then over¬ 
come by the preflure of family affli£tions, how can he be fuppofed to 
have encouraged any of thofe evil practices, and pmch lefs tan he 
during the three following years, for Paterculus, we find, afks 


- 1 


41 


Vinicius, ii. 130.—Quantis, hoc triennium, M. Vinici, doloribus, 
laceravit animum ejus ? Quamdiu abltrufo, quod miferrimum eft, 
pe&us ejus flagravit incendio ? 

The graviflimum exitium then does not appear to have been any 
way conne&ed with thofe crimes of Falanius and Rubrius, that is—if 
thofe crimes were committed in the fecond year of Tiberius. But is 
it not likely that thofe crimes were committed after the death of 
Livia? May we not conclude from his faying that Tiberius wrote to 
the Confuls on this occalion, that he was then not at Rome ?—Or, 
rather that he was then at Capreae ? Was it his ufual pra&ice to 
write to the Senate before he retired ? Does not Tacitus fay, iv. 55, 
that he ufed to attend the Senate frequently ? And does he not fay, 
c. 66, that the Senate, in the cafe of Varus Quinftilius, waited his 
return ? And becaufe he was, in fuch cafes, the only fuffugium ? 
and may we not alfo conclude from his having faid that his mother 
had confecrated thofe fports to the memory of Auguftus, that thofe 
crimes were committed after her dcceafe ? Would he have faid, in 
her life time, of any thing appointed by her to be continued during 
her life, that fhe had appointed it ? Would it not be more proper 
for him to have faid that fhe hath appointed it ? 

- Quos per flagitia invifos vulgus Chriftianos appellabat. 

Au&or nominis ejus Chriftus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem 
Pontium Pilatum fupplicio affe&us eft. Refitejfaque in [ir^fens exitia - 
bills fufierjlitio rurfus erumfiebat , non modo per Judaeam originem ejus 
mali, fed fier urbem etiam. A. xv. 44. 

Whoever will be at the pains to compare the Iaft claufe of this 
paflage with that paflage immediately preceding, quoted from 
Ann. i. 73, will no longer doubt of the meaning of that. Exitiabilis 
fuperftitio, correfponds to graviflimum exitium—dein repreffum fit, 
to, repreflaque in prefens—rurfus erumpebat, to, poftremo arferit— 



I 


\ 


42 

and, non modo per Juda?am fed per urbem etiam, to, cun< 3 aque corn'- 

. _ . I . 

puerit.—And whofoever will be at the pains to compare both of thofe 
padages with the lad of thofe adduced by Ailguflin, vi. c. n, from 
Seneca, will be inclined to think that they all mean the fame thing. 
Indeed, if Augudin quoted that from Seneca, the father, who can 
(as he is faid to have died before Tiberius) help thinking that thofe 
three palfages evidently do fo ? 

i 

If now Tiberius, by no fmall artifice, introduced this mod grievous 
ped and dedru&ive fupeidition, who can doubt of his having been a 
believer in Jefus Child, that is—in his divinity ? For what occafion 
was there for any artifice to introduce a preacher of morality at 
Rome? Would the Romans have thought of engaging in the word 
of civil wars on that account ? 

--— Manebat quippe fufpicionum etcredendi temcritas. iv. 67. 

Non alias magis anxia et pavens civitas, egens ( agens P) adverfuin 
proximos, congrediis, colloquia, notae ignotceque aures [aural P) 
vitari: etiam muta atque inanima, te&um et parietes circumfpe&a- 
bantur. —. 69. 

-Neque fenatus in eo cura, an imperii extrema dchoneda- 

rentur: pavor internus occupaverat animos cui, &c.—Et revenere in 

urbem trepidi, quos non fermone non vifu dignatus ed: quidam male 

alacres, (Jnibus infaudae amicitia? gravis exitus imminebat. —. 74. 

r • > ^ 

— 111 Ne [niP) cceledis religio decerneretur. fic ipfam maluide. 

v. 2. 

• — ■ ■ ■ 1 • Novas condones, nova patrum confulta. —. 4. 

Dion C . —xxi 01 spxnijrxi, xyxvxxruvres on xvroi re ts mv "Zriixva 
evvoixn vituitrev^ncrxi t xxi oi vvxro<pv\xxtsrtyuv er ryv rtf xvroxpxropos 7 Tifiv 7 rpozn^^ 
Qwtxv, tfATTprxTiis re xxi xpxjxyxs enrotavro, xxiroi zjxvrwv run tn rais xpyxn ovruy 
to rsxn ea ttj s ra T iGsput tyrcASjr ^vXxrrovrcov, p. 628. E* 

\ 


1 






\ 


43 

jlT ' ' 

Query—If the foldiers, that is, the praetorian (Soptpopoi, as Dion fays, 
p. 623, B.) were fufpe&ed of favoring Sejanus, why does Suetonius 
tell us, chap. 48, that they were rewarded by Tiberius for not having 
favored him? And, if they were fo diflatisfied, becaufe night-watches 
more in the faith of the Emperor — is rvv m xvroxpxropos — were 

thought more truft-worthy, as to become incendiaries and depredators, 
even though the magiftrates were ordered by Tiberius to keep the 

I 

peace, why fhouid they be fuppofed to have been rewarded by him 
at all ?—Efpecially fo very handfomely ? Do not both Suetonius, 
chap. 37, and Tacitus, ii, fay that he was for nothing fo anxious as 
to keep every thing quiet? Populares tumuhus exortos graviffime 
coercuit; et ne orirentur fedulo cavit.—Nihil enim ipfum tarn anxium 

habuit, quam ne compofita turbarentur.-How differently does 

V: Maximus fpeak of this affair, 1 . ix. 11.—Arse pulvinaria, templa 
praefenti numine vallata funt: Nlhilque quod pro capite Augufli, ac 
patria excubare dehiiit torpere fibi permifit.—Would Maximus have 
faid fo, a year or two after, if the prcetorian bands had been attached 
to Sejanus, and if they had been incendiaries and depredators? 

Tertullian. —Tiberius ergo cujus tempore nomen Chriftianum 
in feculum introivit. Annunciata fibi ex Syria Palaeftina qua? illic 
veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverunt, detulit ad fenatum cum 
prcerogativa fuffragii fui. Senatus, qui non ipfe probaverat, refpuit : 
Caefar in fententia manfit, comminatus periculum accufatoribus 
chriflianorum. ApoL c. 5. 

1 

Eusebius. — Txvtx TiprvXXixyos ms P x^xtuv vo(ahs xxp&xxus, xwp, TX rs 
uXXx Ev<$o%oSf x.xi Tuiv [xxXi^x Pxpi^s XxfAZJpxvf fv t Y) azjoXoyix. v., t. X. 

Ecc . hijl. ii; 2. 

\ x ' u n , 

-0 oi xvros ThXxros T iQsptu rx xxrx rov Zxmpx xvxyxyuv kxi m ypt^a 

SoypxTos, txivr.aev sis tpurx tsi^sxs. T ,€spios rs 7 rpos rw o’cyKXvrrjv ixomXoyr,axro 
tssoi rr,s sis yjiTov t ni<iixs, * Chron, 

G 


\ 








44 

Jerom.—P ilato de chrifHanorum dogmate referente, Tiberius re- 
tulit ad fenatum, ut inter c& ter a facra reciperetur. 

Query—Did this latent monfter of lull and cruelty, who was, as 
Tacitus fays, afhamed to be feen, who, as Jofephus fays, was in¬ 
different about moft things, and who as both Suetonius and Tacitus 
fay, was notorioufly a fatalift, not only permit a fuperflition fo 
deftru&ive to creep into Rome, in fpite of the Senate, but by his in¬ 
conceivable artifice procure an entrance for it?—If he did how did 
the Senate a£t ? 

The abolisher of all Sanctuary Protections . 

1 Si i ' * 

Tacitus. —Sed Tiberius vim principatus libi firmans imaginem 
antiquitatis fenatui praebebat, poftulata provinciarum ad difquifitionem 
patrum mittendo. Crebrefcebat enim Graecas per urbes licentia et im- 
punitas afyla flatuendi: complebantur templa peffimis fervitiorum: - 
eodem fubfidio obaerati adverfum creditores, fufpeClique capitalium 
criminum receptabantur. Nec ullum fatis validum imperium erat coer- 
cendis feditionibus populi, flagitia hominum ut caeremonias Deum pro- 

tegentis. Igitur placitum ut mitterent civitates jura, atque legates. 

Magnaque ejus diei fpecies fuit, quo fenatus majorum beneficia, 
fociorum pa&a, regum etiam, qui ante vim Romanam valuerant 
decreta, ipforumque numinum religiones introfpexit, libero, ut quon¬ 
dam, quid firmaret, mutaretve. A. iii. 60. 

Suetonius. —Abolevit et jus moremque afylorum quae ufquam 
erant. iii, 37. 

The first Prohibit or of immediate Executions . 

* * ' . x _ t* / • " / \ 

Suetonius. —Nam cum Senatus confulto cautum eflet ut pcena 
damnatorum in decimum femper diem differretur. iii. 75. 

Tacitus. — Igitur fa&iim S. C. ne decreta patrum ante diem deci¬ 
mum ad cerarium deferretur. A. iii, 15. 


/ 







F 


4.5 

Dion C.-^— i^ETLu.yrt rs xvroi: y.xi <$oyux rt vxpx^oQwxi ex&.tvcrt, /xrf 
xfro9yy)XXEiv svtos oekx yfupwv rov xxtx^v^ltOe^tx v?,r xvrvv, &C. 

1 . 57. p. 617. A, 

The nursing Father of the Infant Catholic Church. 

Clemens of R. —Cumque nullum videremus exitum rei, fuper- 
venit Cornelius Centurio, mifius a Caefare ad pneddem Caefareie, 
publici negotii causa: hunc accerdmus ad nos folum, caufamque ei 
qua mxfti edemus exponimus; ac fi quid poflet, ut juvaret, hortamur. 
Turn ille promptiflime repromittit fe eum protinus fugaturum, II 
tamen condlio ejus etiatn nos adniteremur: cumque nos polliceremur 
impigre cunfla gefTuros, ail; Caefar in urbe Roma, et per provincias 
m^lcficos inquiri juffit ac perimi; ex quibus multi jam perempti funt, 
Rc'cogn. 1 . x. c. 55. c. 56. 58. 59.—and Ajiojl. Conji. vi 8. 

■ ' 0 $£ xxuxxs tTTi^nfAYyniv rnxs ex tv: Tporxyv: B xtiXixv: I'niZpTuvrxs 

avrov, xxl ^xxxovrxs xxtf on K xiaxp ttoWh: //.xytss xvs\uv , eirx xxi rx xxtx 
hpLUiX no 9 o(j.tvos eh nri^vTVTiv xvra ontus xxt xvrov 0^.01^: xoXxrv. 

E/iit. de gejlis S. Petri —cxxxiv. 

N. B. In each of thefe extra&s Clemens fpeaks of Simon—and, in 
the former, he fays, that Cornelius, the Centurion, had then been 

converted to the faith—that he was fent, on fome public budnefs, by 

• 1 4 , 

Tiberius, to the Prefident of Caefarea—that is, furely to Pilate ; 
that Caefar had, both at Rome, and through the provinces, caufed 
inquidtion to be made for the maledcent—and, in the latter, for 
Simon in particular—and, in both he fays, that he had, before that 
time } but how long we know not, caufed many of thofe maleficent— 
or—magi, to be put to death. How long then, before this million of 
Cornelius to the Prefident ofCaefarea, had Ciefar caufed the maleficent 
to be fought out and put to death—and, in particular, at Rome ? 


G 2 





40 


In his Homily, i. 6. 7., Clemens alfo fays that, in the courfe of the 
year in which our Lord fuffered—that is, in the fourteenth of Tibe¬ 
rius, there were frequent meetings all over Rome to enquire what this 
new mefienger from God had done and faid;—that before the autumn 
of that year Barnabas, {landing in the molt frequented place in that 
city, preached eternal life in the name of the fon of God—that 
tumults enfued, and that Barnabas was obliged to take flielter in the 
houfe of Clemens. 

Tacitus, we have feen, fays, that the execrable fuperftition, was 
for the Jircfent —in praefens—reprefled, and—that the mojl grievous 
pejl , which was introduced by the no little artifice of Tiberius, was 
alfo reprelled—and, that unaccountable unealinefs prevailed all over 
Rome in the fourteenth year of Tiberius. 

Early in the year following the Sanhedrin, on the accufation of 
certain libertines—that is, furely, Jews made free of Rome, ftoned 
Stephen, as a blafphemer, and continued the praftice of {toning 
Jewifh believers, as blafphemers, (even thofe of ilrange cities) a year 
or two from that time.—Confequently, why fhould we not conclude 
from this, that thofe libertines were, on their return to Rome, very 
forward to feize Jewilh believers, as blafphemers, for the purpofe of 
getting them {toned by the Sanhedrin ? And that great difturbances 
were, by that means only, if the Senate had not then refufed to ac¬ 
knowledge the divinity of Chrilt, occafioned as Tacitus feems to fay, 
A. iv. 70., at Rome?—That the Senate encouraged the perfecutors— 

and Tiberius, protected believers ? Of this, we however, are allured 
# 

by both Jofephus and Suetonius that, after the refurre£tion, Tiberius 
fent 4,000 libertines to Sardinia—and by Philo, that it happened 
before the fall of Sejanus. Ail thofe hittorians agree that the Jews 
alfo were then expelled: and not the Jews only but the Egyptians— 
and, as Suetonius fays, the liinilia fe&antes. Confequently—why 


1 


47 


v 


fhould we not fuppofe, that the execrable fuperftition of the fimilia 
fe&antes was, as Tacitus fays, reprefled, about the fame time tfyat 
thofe libertines were fent to Sardinia ? 

Tertullian. —Comminatus periculum accufatoribus chriftian- 

orum * c . 5. 

EUSEBIUS.— rr t $ oe (jliq piupixv »jy«//,£»?£ ro x.vpvyfjLcc rtt 

fxvpu, 0 ctvros Ootvzrov Ey^/craro xctrx ruv <)(coktuv ruv ^piT^vuv, us TsprvWtxvos 

w?* 1 - • Chron y 

Jerom.—V erum quum ex conlulto patrum Chriftianos eliminari 

1 1 

urbe placuiffet, Tiberius per edi£tum accufatoribus Chriftianorum 
comminatus eft mortem. Chron . 

N. B. It feems to have been, on this account, that Tiberius, who 
in the ninth year of his reign, acquired no little praife for difcouraging 

informers, is accufed, by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion C. of 

\ 

having encouraged them. 

m > , f , * ► 

( r? fi ■ .fr:. ■*• .. T-i. * : 

The Protector of Jewish Christians as not Blasphemers . 

Talmud of J.—A tradition: forty years before the Temple was 
deftroyed, judgement, in capital cafes, was taken away from Ifrael. 

m 

—Lightfoot hebrew and talmudical exercitations on Matth. xxvi. 3.-— 
John xviii. 31. p. 248. 

Luke. —And he (Saul) fpake boldly (at Jerufalem) in the name of 
the Lord Jefus, &c.— Then had the churches reft, throughout all 
Judea, and Gaiilee, and Samaria. Ads ix. 29. 30. 31. 

What?—Did the Sanhedrin, who had commiflioned him to feize, 
not only in Judea, but in ftrange cities, Jewiffi believers, and to im- 
prifon them for the purpofe of trying them as blafphemers, and ftoning 
them, fuffer their own officer to fpeak boldly, even at Jerufalem, in 
the name of the Lord Jefus, and without attempting even to moleft 


/ 





I 


48 

i 

him? How is this unexpected forbearance on the part of the San¬ 
hedrin to be accounted for ? Why did they, who had been fo zealous 
and aCtive in endeavouring to fupprefs this new feCt, and as Tacitus 
fays, had actually fucceeded, fo tamely fuffer their own fervant to 
preach Chrift, as it were in defiance of them ? Had they relinquifhed 
the practice of ftoning Chriftians as blafphemers ? If fo—why did 
they relinquifh it—and when? Could Tiberius have interpofed his 
authority between the Sanhedrin and believers? Tertullian, we find, 

$ 

fays that he threatened periculum to the accufers of Chriftians.— 

Eufebius and Jerom fay that he threatened death to them. And their 
report feems to be fupported by that of Clemens of R. But may not 
Tertullian have, by periculum, meant the pumfhment which Tiberius 
threatened before the ftoning of believers as blafphemers ? Would 
Tiberius have threatened death to fuch as fhould accufe Chriftians of 
worfhipping a God not authorifed by the Senate ? Was death the 
punifhment for introducing an unauthorifed Diety ? If fo, was not 

«*» 

Tiberius himfelf liable to that punifhment? Jerom, we find, fays 
that the Senate ordered Chriftians only to leave Rome. May not 
Tiberius then, have firft threatened periculum, and afterwards death? 

Of all Kings or Autocrats the most venerable . 

Philo.— xK\x ryv yXtxixv j xxi < 770 * 0 ? ixxWov 0* / 3 x<Ti\evv » xvroxfxrtfx* 
ivyypus } 780 

/ 'v f 

I PI * _ _ " ' , I 

As some affirmed, ‘prefigured by that of a Phoenix. 

1 r 

Tacitus. —P. F. et L. V. Cofs, poll longum feculorum ambitum, 
avis Phoenix in iEgyptum venit; praebuitque materiem doCtifiimis 
indigenarum, et Graecorum multa fuper eo miraculo diflerendi. 

A. vi. 28. 

DlON. E* Je rx xxi rx Aiyvirtix vpos ms T?u>(axi8s vfoxyxetj 0 ipoivi^ ty.tivtj 
ru ere* w<f)9y, kxi e^o|« Toy Oxvxtov rta T £tptu rrpoTnfAxmtv. 1 . 38 . p. 638 . B. 



N 






49 


Solemnized with clue pomp and at the public Expence. 

Suetonius. —Tiberio cum plurimis lacrymis pro condone laudato, 
funeratoque ampliflime: iv. 15. 

DlON C.— kxi Svy.o7txs rxfyns trv%e, xxt vrmvtQv v7ro rtt Txw. 

Sub. fine. 1 . 56. 

Followed Augustus to the residence of the Gods . 

Seneca. —Appice vice curator eft: qua fcis et divum Auguftum, et 
Tiberium Ccefarem ad Deos ifte. Ajiocolocynt . CL Ct?s, 









\ 







/ 












' 


' 

V 









•) . ; 
















> ' 








, 














' • • V;- ' • . J ; . . / 

. 

\ - » 

■ •.> :?• i •' " - r ’ •:% - * 

i , i 

) > ■ ■ ■ ' * 
v ' , 

% •> •■ • •' I I 

1 

'•.••• # 

... , 

, •; 1 * » \ - 

‘ 

. ... '. • . 

. .. Si ■ feta * 




* 






* 












- _ 

’1 

i 

’ 




















. >, 


















, 




:\ 





























' 









• 


i <*. , 




\ 

) 



1 



















. 



























1 










1 .■ 




' 








< 




' 

m 

■ 




* 












i 


, 






* 






















* 






• . 
















i 













r 


51 

A SYNOPSIS of CHRONOLOGY 

DURING THE LIFE 

OF 

TIBERIUS . 


/ 


A. C. 

u. c. 

A. R. 

CONS 

ULS. 

H. R. 

Olympiad 

36 

711 


Pausa .... OCT. 

Hirtius .... Q. PED. .. 


134 

1 

2 

5 

2 

1 

L. M. Plancus . 

M. .Timil Lepidus. 



2 

3 

4 

3 

2 

L. Antouius . 

P. Servil. Isauricus. 



3 

4 

3 

4 

3 

Cn. I)om. Ahenobarbus . 

C. Asinius Pollio . 

H. 

185 

4 

1 

2 

5 

4 

L. M. Censorious. 

C. Calvis. Sabinus. 

1 


l 

2 

1 

6 

5 

App. Claud. Pulcher .... 

C. Norban. Flaccus .... 

2 


2 

3 

30 

7 

6 

M. Vips. Agrippa. 

C. Canin. Gal Ins ...... 

3 


3 

4 

9 

* 8 

7 

L. Gell. Poplicola. 

M. Cocc. Nerva. 

4 

186 

4 

L 

8 

Q 

8 

L. Carnificus .. 

S. Pompouius. 

5 


1 

2 

' 7 

720 

9 

M. Antouius . 

L. Scrib. f/1 bo . 

6 


2 

3 

6 

i 

10 

OCTAVIUS ii . 

L. Volcat. Tullas . 

km 

i 


3 

4 

5 

2 

1 

Cn. Dorn. Ahenobarbus . 

C. Sosius . 

8 

13“ 

4 

1 

4 

3 

2 

OCTAVIUS iii . 

M. Valer. Messala . 

9 


1 

2 

3 

4 

3 

OCTAVIUS iv . 

M. Cioin. Crassus ...... 

10 


2 

3 

2 

5 

4 

OCTAVIUS v . 

S. Apuleius .. 

] 


3 

4 

1 

6 

b 

OCTAVIUS vi . 

M. Vips. Agrippa . 

2 

188 

4 

1 

20 

7 

6 

OCT. AUG. vii . 

M . Vips. Agrippa ...... 

3 


l 

2 

o 

i 

8 

7 

AUGUSTUS viii . 

T Stalil. Taurus ....... 

4 


2 

3 

%/ 

ft 

q 

i 

8 

AUGUSTUS ix . 

M. Jun. Silanus . 

5 


3 

4 

7 

730 

9 

AUGUSTUS x . 

C. Norban. Flaccus .... 

6 

189 

4 

1 


711.—Tiberius born, Nov. 16. 

714.—Herod made king by Ant. and Oct. in the 184 Oly. (1)— Oct. takes Livia Nor. 
Tib. then trimus. (2) 

717.—Drusus born, Feb.—Jer. taken in the harvest after a sabbatical year. (3) 

722. —'I'he first lustrum, which ended with a Census hy Csesar, begun. 

723. —The battle of Actium fought on the 2d Sept. (4j 

725. —The temple of Janus shut.—The Actian, &c. triumphs, Tib. pubescens. (5) 

Caesar entitled Autocratoor in a new sense. 

726. —The first Census by Cresar ended.—Made Prin. Sen—The first Actian games. (6) 

727. —Augustus made governor of the provinces for ten years. (7) 

729. —Tiberius made aedile in Spain.—The temple of Janus shut. 

730. —Tib. made qua*stor, and permitted to take offices five years before others. 

(1) Jos. A. xiv.-(2) Paierc. ii. 94.-(3) Jos. A. xiv. .-(4) Dion I. $0. 

(5) Suet. iii. 6. -(6) Dion 1. 53.-(7) Ibid. 53. p. 496. C. D. 


H 































































52 


\ 


A SYNOPSIS of CHRONOLOGY 

DURING THE LIFE 

OF 

TIBER I US. 




X 


A: c. 

u. c. 

A • R • 

CON* 

SULS. 

H. R. 

Olympiad 

6 

731 

20 

AUGUSTUS xi. 

Cn. Calpurn. Piso. 

17 

189 

1 2 

5 

2 

1 

M. Claud. Marcellus .... 

L. Arruntius. 

8 


2 3 

4 

3 

2 

L. TEmi!. Lepidus. 

M. Loilius. 

9 


3 4 

3 

4 

3 

M. Apuleius . 

P. Silius Nerva .... 

20 

190 

4 1 

2 

5 

4 

C. Sent. Saturninus .... 

Q. Lueret. Vespillo .... 

1 

1 2 

1 

6 

5 

P. C. Lentulus . 

Cn. Corn. Lentulus .... 

2 


2 3 

10 

7 

6 

C. Furnius. 

C. Jul. Silanus. 

3 


3 4 

9 

8 

7 

L. Dorn. Ahenobarbus .. 

P. Com. Seipio. 

4 

191 

4 1 

8 

9 

8 

M. L D. Li bo . 

L. Calpurn. Piso. 

5 


1 3 

7 

740 

9 

Cn. Corn. Lentulus .... 

M. Liein. Crassus . 

6 * 


2 3 

6 

1 

30 

TIBERIUS . 

P. Quinct. Varus . 

7 


3 4 

5 

2 

1 

M. Val. Mess. Barbatus 

P. Sulpit Quirinus. 

8 

192 

4 1 

4 

3 

2 

Q. 7EI. Tubcro . 

P. Fab. Maximus. 

9 


1 2 

3 

4 

3 

Q. Fabius .. 

Jul. Antonius . 

30 


2 3 

2 

5 

4 

DRUSUS . 

T. Quinct. Crispinus .... 

1 


3 4 

1 

6 

5 

C. M. Censorinus . 

C. Asia. Gallus . 

2 

193 

4 1 

C. N. 

7 

6 

TIBERIUS ii . 

Cn. Calpurn. Piso . 

3 


1 2 

1 

8 

7 

D. L. Balbus . 

C. A. Vetus . 

4 


0 Q 

m t) 

2 

9 

8 

AUGUSTUS xii . 

C. Sylla . 

5 


3 4 

3 

750 

9 

C. Sabmus . 

P. Rufus ... 

6 

194 

4 1 


731. —Augustus dangerously ill.—Marcellus dies. 

732. —Augustus goes to Sicily. 

733. —Agr. marries Jul.—Augustus goes to Greece, and winters at Samos. 

Tib. marches through Macedonia—and is sent against Armenia. (1) 

734. —Aug., in the spring, goes to Asia—thence to Syria—C'aius horn.—Aug. gives to 

Herod the tetrarchy of Zen.—Sends for l ib. to expel Artabar, and to restore 
Tigr.—l ib. begins to expect the Monarchy.—Aug. returns to Samos, and there 
again winters. 

735. —Augustus returns to Rome. 

737-—Lucius born. 

742.—Agrippa died.—Tiberius marries Julia. 

747. —Aug. begins his second Census —Christ born. 

748. —Tib. invested with tribunitia! power for five years—-retires to Rhodes. 

749. —Caius puts 011 the Toga virilis. 

750. —Herod dies after having reigned about 36} years. 

(1) Strabo, 1. xvii. 


I 
























































53 




A SYNOPSIS of CHRONOLOGY 

DURING THE LIFE 

OF 

TIB E R I US. 


A. D. 

u. c. 

A. R. 

CON 

SULS. 

A. R. 

Oylmpiad 

4' 

751 

40 

L. Gaeiulicus. 

M. Messalinus . 

1 

194 

1 2 

5 

2 

1 

AUGUSTUS xiii___ 

Gall, Caninius ... 

2 


2 3 

6 

3 

2 

C. C. Lentulus .. 

L. Calpurn. Piso. 

3 


3 4 

7 

4 

3 

CAIUS . 

L. /Emil. Paulus . 

4 

195 

4 1 

8 

5 

4 

P. Vinicius Nepos. 

P. Alphin. Varus . 

5 


1 2 

9 

6 

5 

L. /EL Lamia. 

L. Servil. Germinus .... 

6 


2 3 

10 

7 

6 

T. ./El. Catus. 

C. Sent. Saturninus .... 

7 


3 4 

1 

8 

7 

L. Valer Messala ...... 

Cn. Corn. Cinna. 

8 

196 

4 1 

2 

9 

8 

M. /Emil. Lepidus. 

L. Arrunt. Nepos. 

9 


1 2 

3 

760 

9 

L. Licin. Nerva. 

Cn. Metell. Creticus .... 



2 3 

4 

1 

50 

M. Fur. Camillus. 

S. Non. Quinctilianus .* 



3 4 

$ 

2 

1 

Q. Sulpit. Camerinus .. 

C. Popp. Sabinus . 


197 

4 1 

6 

3 

2 

P. Corn. Dolabella .... 

C. Jun. Silanus ... .... 



1 2 

7 

4 

3 

M. .®mil. Lepidus .... 

T. Statil. Taurus. 



2 3 

8 

5 

4 

GERMANICTJS. 

C. Font. Capito. 



3 4 

9 

6 

5 

C. Silius Nepos. 

L. Munat. Plancus .... 


198 

4 1 

40 

7 

T .6 

S. Potnp. Nepos. 

S. Apul. Nepos. 



1 2 

1 

8 

l 

DRUSUS . :... 

C. Norbanus. 



2 3 

2 

9 

2 

Statil. Sisen. Taurus .... 

L. Scribon. Libo ....... 



3 4 

3 I 

770 

3 

C. Caeeil. Rufus . 

L. Pomp. Flaccus. 


199 

4 1 


t 

751. —Caius, after his travels , and, before he took the command in the east, heard the 

validity of Herods will discussed. (1) 

752. —The second Census by Aug. ended.—Censore me et Caninio Coss. (2) 

Lucius puts on Toga virilis. 

755.—Lucius died.—1 iberius recalled.—Drusus puts on the Tog. vir. 

757 .—Caius died.—Tiberius adopted. 

75.9.—Archelaus deposed.—Christ went up to Jer.—12 years old. 

76 O.—Agrippa banished, and his effects put into the military chest. 

7<)2.—Tiberius made Princeps Senatus, and coll, with Aug. in the Censorship. 

70*7.—The third Census by Augustus ended. 

(1) Jos. A. xvii. 9 . f.-(2) Ancyr. mar.—Paterculus ii. 100. 


H 2 


4 























































V 


54 



A SYNOPSIS of CHRONOLOGY 

DURING THE LIFE 

v • S “ 

OF 

/ 

TIBERIUS. 



A. D. 

u. c. 

T. R. 

CONS 

iULS. 

fcc 

Olympiad 

24 

771 

4 

TIBERIUS iii. 

GERMANICUS ii. 

O* 

a 

199 

1 2 

5 

O 

J* 

5 

M. Jun. Silanus 

Norban. Flaccus . 

** ' 


2 3 

6 

3 

6 

M. Valerius. 

M. Aurelius . 

e 


3 4 

7 

4 

7 

TIBERIUS iv. 

DRTJSUS ii., 


200 

4 1 

4 

8 

5 

8 

C. Sulpitius. 

1 ). Haterius. 


1 2 

2 

6 

9 

C. Asinius . 

C. Antistius. 



2 3 

30 

7 

10 

C. Cethegus . 

V. Visell. Varro . 



3 4 

1 

8 

1 

C. Lentulus ... 

A sin. Agrippa . 

K 

c*l 

201 

4 1 

2 

9 

2 

Cn. Lent. Gcetulicus ... 

C. Calvisius . 

a 


1 2 

3 

780 

3 

M. Licin. Crassus . 

L. Calpurn. Tiso . 



2 3 

4 

1 

4 

App. Jun. Silanus . 

P. Sil. Nerva. 

42 


3 4 

5 

2 

5 

C. Rubellio—Gem . 

C. Fufius—Gem. 

1 

202 

4 1 

6 

3 

€ 

C. C. Longinus. 

M. Vinuc. Quartinus ... 

40 

1 2 

7 

4 

7 

TIBERIUS v. 

L. 7E1. Seianus. 

9 


O Q 

8 

5 

8 

Cn. Dom. Ahenobarbus . 

V 

M. Fur. Canaillus .. ^... 

8 


3 4 

9 

6 

9 

Ser. Sulpit. Galba .. 

L. Corn. Sylla . 

At 

i 

203 

4 1 

40 

7 

20 

P. Fab. Persicus. 

L. Vitellius . 

6 


1 2 

1 

8 

1 

C. Caest. Gall. Camerinus 

M. Servil. Rufus. 

5 


2 3 

2 

9 

2 

Q. Plaut. Plantianus ... 

Sext. Papinius. 

4 


3 4 

3 

720 

3 

Cn. Aceron. Proculus .. 

C. Pont. Nigrinus. 

3 

204 

4 1 


777 . —Pilate made Proc. of Judaea.—Our Lord baptised, when near 30, 

778. —The Temple 46 years building.—Begun 732, in the 15th ol Herod. (1) 

779. —Tiberius makes the tour of Campania—The last Jubilee begins. 

781. —Tiberius retires to Capreae —Our Lord when about 32, crucified, 42 years before 

the fall of the Temple.—Great disorders at Rome. 

782. —Livia dies, and leaves orders to refuse all honors ne (nit) ccelestis, &c. 

783. —The power of stoning Jewish believers as blasphemers taken from the Jews 20 

years before the fall of the temple. (2) 

784. —The Christians expelled by the Senate from Rome, and protected by Tiberius. 
788.—Pilate sent to Rome and dies on his passage.—Cornelius converted by Peter who 

was blamed for eating with him by the other Apostles. 

0) Josephus B. i. 21, — (2) Talmud of Jer. 





























































THE HISTORY 


OF 


T I B E E 1 U E 


THE 


First Defender of the true Faith , 


ho>iim^ r m ~(\ 


V 





















f ’ ,\ 








. 




f 




* 




V 
















: 


*■ 


















> 

N 




















' 



























’ 

■ j , ■- ' .. : ;*/■;, f 

• - 1 i .* 

^ ._ . . 

4 

' 

' 

‘ 








. 




I 












* 


r ■ ■ * *• 'A h . . ■ 

' 

■ 

' - . 

/ 

-• ■ ’’ ' fiu ’ ' 1 




' X ' 

N 

i* * ' - - . 


THE HISTORY 


of 

N f 

TIBERIUS, 

THE 


First Defender of the true Faith. 



\ 

i 


CHAPTER I. 

v . 

Tiberius born u. c. 711 . 

&UETON 1 US fays, iii. 5, that Tiberius was born, either in the 
firfl confulfhip of Auguflus, or in that of Plancus and Lepidus, or in 
that of L. Antoni us and P. S. Ifauricus, that is, either u. c. 711, 712, 
or 713. The fame writer adds—that it appeared by the public re¬ 
cords, that he was born 712, and that mofl chronologifts, and, among 
* them the better informed, were convinced that he was born in that 
year. The opinion of thofe better informed, Suetonius himfelf feems, 
by what he fays, c. 73, of the age of Tiberius, at his death, to have 
followed: He there fays that Tiberius died 17 kal. April—i. e. the 
16th March in the year of Rome 790, and that he was then in his 
78th year.—Confequently if he had lived till the 16th of November 
he would have been full 78.—Whether Suetonius was always of the 
fame perfuafion we may, as we extend our enquiries, be able to difcover. 











4 


% / 

I » 

4 

* 

Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711 . 

Tacitus alfo Teems to have followed the opinion of tliofe better 
informed, for he fays, Ann. vi. 50, that Tiberius, at his death (which, 
he fays, happened in March 790,) was in the 78th year of his age. 
In which cafe he muft have been born in November 712. Now if he 
was born in November 712, he mud, in November 741, when he 
was the firft time conful, have been 29 only—and, in November 747, 
when he was a fecond time conful, have been 35, and, in the year 
following, 748, (when, as Dion fays, 1 . 55, p. 554, D., and, as Pater¬ 
culus, ii. 99, and Suetonius, iii. 9, appear to fay, he was firft inverted 
with the tribunitial power,) have been in his 36 year.—And, therefore, 
Drufus his fon, rauft, when he was firrt made colleague with his 
father in the tribunitial power—that is—in the year of Rome 775, 
have, according to Tacitus, been in his 36 year—for, fays Tacitus, 
iii. 56, Tiberius himfelf then remarked to the Senate, when he applied 
for the tribunitial power for his fon, that he was of the fame age as 
himfelf when he was firft made a tribune. And confequently Drufus 

muft have been born 739 —But does he really appear to have been 

» 

born in that year ?—Let us endeavour to fatisfy ourfelves. 

Drufus, fays Suetonius, iii. 7, was his only fon by Vipfania Agrip¬ 
pina, the daughter of M. Agrippa, and the grand-daughter of the 
famous Caecilius Atticus. When Tiberius married her, it docs not 
appear. But fays Suetonius, in the fame chapter, he, when he put 
her away, had Drufus by her, and The was with child again—fublatoque 
ex ea ftlio Drufo, quamquam bene convenientem, rurfumque gravi- 
dam dimittcrc, aC, &c.'—Dion fays, 1 . 54, p. 543, G., when the had 
brought him one child and was fuckling it, and was going with another 
xa< raivcv to [aev rch? ro sv -pi syna-xv —he Was Compelled 

to put her away, and marry Julia. This, according to Dion, happened 

1 

in the confulfhip of M. V. Barbatus, and P. S. Quirinus, u. c. 742. 



5 


Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711 . 

And, according to the joint reports of Paterculus and Dion, early in 
that year, becaufe, fay they, he was immediately obliged’ to take the 
command in Pannonia, which Agrippa had, in the preceding winter, 
been, through ill health, obliged to refign. Drufus then appears to 
have been, in the fpring of the year 742, about one or two years old. 
Arid COnfequCntly to have been born in 741, if not in 740. Dion 
fays, 1 . 56, p. 586, A., that Drufus was quaeflor in the year 764. 4 

t . . j % 

That Drufus is likely to have been born in 740, Suetonius has render¬ 
ed credible by what he fays, iii. 15,—viz—that Tiberius, on his return 

\ — 

from Rhodes (which according to Paterculus, ii. 103, and Dion, 
1 . 55, p. 556, A., happened in the year 755—and to Cardinal Noris 
about July in that year) introduced his fon into the forum, and that 
he, having done this, immediately quitted Pompey’s houfc, in the 
Carinae, (which furely feems to imply that he had been refiding there 
fome time at Ieaft) and removed to that of Maecenas, in the Efqui- 
liae. His own words are—Romam reverfus, dedudto in forum filio 
Drufo, ftatim e Carinis ac Pompeiana domo, Efquilias in hortos 
Maecenatianos trarifmigravit:—of courfe, if Tiberius foon after Ins 
return from Rhodes in the year 755, introduced Drufus to the com¬ 
pany of men, and—at the ufual age—viz—foon after he was 15, (for 
at that age Suetonius fays, ii. 8, Auguftus took the Toga,) he muft 
have been, at lateft, born before July 740, or, in the courfe of the 
year before Tiberius was conful the firft time.—And confequently, 
muft, in the year 775, when he was made his father’s colleague in the 
tribunefhip, have been 35 years old. Tiberius therefore muft have 
been born the year before Tacitus fuppofes, and, by his own report, 
have been firft made colleague with Auguftus in the tribunitial power, 
not as Dion fays in the year 748 but in the year 746—the year before 
he was the fecond time conful. 




/ 


6 

\ 

Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711 . 

If then Tiberius and Drufus, were, when they were inverted with the 
tribunitial power, of the fame age, (as Tacitus informs us, Tiberius 
himfelf obferved,) and Drufus was then 35, Tiberius muft alfo have 
been 35,—and, if Tiberius was, as Dion fays, inverted with that power 
748. he muft have been born, not as Tacitus and Suetonius fay in 712, 
but 713. Tacitus then feems, by this report, to have rendered his 
other report queftionable, and, of courfe that of Suetonius too. 

Let us now then hear what Dion favs of this matter.—He feems t« 

* 

have been of a different opinion from thofe two writers, and, of courfc, 
from all the better informed, for he feems to think that he was born 
not in 712 but either in 711 or 713.—L. 57, p. 603, A., he fays 
that Tiberius was u. c. 767, when Auguftus died, 56 years old— 

y <xp kxi TrtvrtKovrx tm rytyow —meaning, perhaps, not that he was 
then 56, but in the 56th. Confequently, he feems by this to have 
thought that he was born 16th November 711—or about two months 
after Auguftus was firft conful. And that he was, at his death, u. c. 
790, in his 79th. But was Dion always of this perfuarton ?—Let us 
fee.—He fays, 1 . 58, p. 639, B., that Tiberius was, when he died, 
not in his 79th year, but in his 77th, which implies that he muft 
have thought that he was born 713, and this he inconfiderately affirms, 

notwithftanding he there fays that he reigned 22 years 7 months and 
7 days. 

As then no fatisfa&ion on this point can be obtained from thofe 
three writers, let us confult one or two of his cotemporaries. 

Paterculus fays, ii. 75, that Tiberius was, when liis parents fled 
from Italy to Sicily, on the defeat of their party by O&avius, and the 
confequent diftribution of their lands among his veterans, minus 
binum .~When then did this infurre&ion happen, and, how long did 
it laft ? 


I 


7 


Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711 . 

Livy Epit. of B. 125, fays that L. the brother of M. Antonius, 
while conful, made, at the inftigation of Fulvia, war on Caefar—and 
that he was joined by thofe who had been difpofiefted of their lands 
by O&avius.—L. Antonius conful, M. Antonii frater, eadem Fulvia 
conciliante, bellum Ccefari intulit: receptis in partes fuas populis, 
quorum agri veteranis affignati efient.—Florus, B. iv. 5, fays nearly 
the fame thing.—Confequently this infurre&ion of the land-holders 
muft have happened u. c. 713. And as to the continuance of it, we 

may fafely conclude from what Paterculus fays, ii. 75, that it could 

% 

not have been long, for he there fays of it—id quoque adventu 
Caefaris fepulttim atque difcuftum eft.—Tiberius Claudius Nero, who, 
Paterculus fays had been the inftigator of this infurre&ion, finding his 
party difperfed, fled with Livia, and her infant fon, then not two 
years old, to Sicily. Confequently Tiberius feems, by the report of 
Paterculus, to have been, in the year 713, lefs than two years old.— 
And therefore he muft, as Dion affirms, 1 . 57, and Suetonius admits 

1 \ 

to have been poffible, have been born u. c. 711. 

Again—When Tiberius was three years old— quo trimo fays Pater¬ 
culus, ii. 94, a reconciliation of all parties took place. On which 
occafton Tiberius Claudius Nero who had then returned fromAchaia, 
whither he had removed from Sicily, refigned his wife, who was then 
fix months advanced in pregnancy for her fecond fon Drufus, to 
O&avius.—Now when did this general reconciliation of the hoftile 
leaders take place ?—Or rather in what year did Tiberius transfer his 
wife Livia to O&avius ? 

Livy we have feen, tells us that O&avius befieged L. Antonius, 
while conful, in Perulia.—And Suetonius tells us, iii, 4, that the 
ftege was begun toward the end of the year —exitu anni —and, again 
ii-. 15, that it was ended before the ides of March.-—When as Livy 




s 


Tiberius born Nov. v. c. 711 . 

* / 

farther favs, in the next chap. 126, Odtavius forgave both Anthony 
a. A all his troops, and by fecuring all the forces of the adverfc party, 
put u n end to the war, without any further bloodfhed—bellum citra 
u.liViii fanguinem conrecit.—With Livy, Paterculus, ii. 74, 76, alfo 
agrees. Suotonius fays Further, iii. 4, that Nero foon after the liege 
was ended— brsvi —returned from Achaia, with Mark Anthony, to 
Italy, when, as jofephus fays, A. xiv. 14, i, before the end of the 
*84 Olympiad—that is—before Midfummer 714, a reconciliation of 
all parties took place. And before the end of the year O&avius 
married Li via.—Confequently, if as Paterculus fays, Tiberius was 

t ^ 

then three years old, he mud, as Dion fays, 1 . 57, have been born 
711, 

Let us next confult Suetonius again and endeavour to difcover if he 
appears to have been always perfuaded that Tiberius was born 712. 

He fays, iii. 6, that Tiberius was, at the Adtian triumph (which 
it appears by Dion, 1 . 51, p. 459, B., took place in the month of 
Auguft u. c. 725, Oft. Cres. V. et S. A. Cofs.) old enough to ride one 
of the horfes which drew the car of Odtavius;—and, that he was, at 
that time, pubefcens —that is, furely, not 12 years and nearly 9 months 
old, but 13 years and 9 months. Confequently it feems by this that 

♦ 1 

he mutt have been born in the year 7 11. 

Again—Suetonius, iii. 9, mentions another office, to which Tiberius 
was promoted, and, the juncture when it took place—a due attention 
to each of which circumltances may enable us to fettle the year of hL 
birth.—He there fays that Tiberius frit ferved in the Cantabriean war 
•—and, as a tribune.—Stipendia prima expeditione Cantabrica Tribu- 
nus militant fecit.—At which time he mull have been, at lerlt, 17 
years of age.—Now when did that war begin—and, when did it end? 


9 


Tiberius born Nov. u . c. 711 ; 

Dion fays, 1 . 53, p. 513, D. E., that it began 728, and feemiftgly 
late in that year, and, p. 515,. that it ended in 729, and feerdingly 

it 

early in that year. He alio fays that the temple of Janus, was, in the 
laft mentioned year, fhut. Dion moreover fays, p. 514, D., that 
Tiberius was not only in Spain in the year 729, but that he together 
with Marcell us, in that year, performed the office of sediles at the 
fports which Auguflus gave, in the field, for the amufement of thofe 
that were then of a military age——ro/y Six rr,v c-^xtsvitiiaov viXmixv tr 

Qtxs rtvxsy Six re ra MapxsAAa xxi ra T i£epia us xxi xyopxvo[jt.Bvruv, tv 
xvrois rots spxroTnSois n ro<i7a£.— As then Tiberius was a tribune in 7283 
and an sedilc in 729, he muff, of courfe, have been born in 711. 

To this evidence of Dion, it may not be amifs to fubjoin that of 
Livy, Epit. of chap. 134, 135.—In the former title he mentions the 

\ 1 

Gallic cenfus—and in the latter, the Thracian war, which was con¬ 
duced by Craffus-—and the Spanifh, which was conduCed by Caefar. 
—Bellum a Marco Craho adverfus Thracas. et a Caefare adverfus 
Hifpanos geftum refertur.—Now the Thracians were fubdued by 
Craffus, fays the Chron. Syn. in the third year of the 188 Olympiad, 
or 728, 729.—OA—PriH—r. K pxaaos TW Opxxixv P u^xiois vmrxtiro. 

Again Paterculus fays, ii. 94, that Tiberius was, when in his 19th 
year, made a quaeflor—quaeflor undeviceffimum annum agens capef- 
fere coepit Rempublicam.—That he was then, with Auguflus, at 
Rome, and very aCive in fupplying the city with corn in the time of 
the greatefl fcarcity.—Now in what year did this happen ? 

Dion, 1 . 53, p. 516, B., fays that Auguflus in his tenth confulate, 
u. c. 730, was at Rome—that Marcellus was then made asdile, and 
Tiberius quceflor.—Jofephus alfo fays, A. xv. 9, that in the 13th 

' . ■ . K • ■ . • 

\ \ ' 

• 1 








10 

Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711 . 

of Herod—u. c. 730.—x. con. of Auguftus a very great fcarcity pre¬ 
vailed all over Judea and Syria.—As therefore Tiberius was in the 
year 730 in his 19th year, he mufl have been born u. c. 711. 

1 

Not long after this—that is—not long after he was quaeftor, he, 
fays Paterculus, ii. 94, was fent to the eaft, by Auguftus, with an 
army, to fee the Provinces and to fettle the affairs of thofe that 
wanted it.—Nec multo poft miffus ab eodem vitrico cum exercitu ad 
vifendas, ordinandafque, quae fub Oriente funt, provincias.—In all 
thofe regions, he, continues Paterculus, gave the moji Jiriking proofs of 
all virtues. —Having, with his legions, entered Armenia, and reduced 
it under the control of the R. P. he gave the command of it to Arta- 
vafdes, for which, he afterwards remarks, c. 122, that he deferved a 
triumph.—And concludes Paterculus, he fo terrified the king of 
Parthia by the greatnefs of his name that he fent his fons as hoftages to 
Caefar.—Of thofe exploits Horace takes notice in his ep. to Iccius, 
1. i. 12, 

Cantaber Agrippae, Claudi virtute Neronis 
Armenius cecidit: jus imperiumque Phraates * 

Caefaris accepit genibus minor. 

Suetonius in two places of his 9th chap, fays nearly the fame as Pater- 

>4. * 

cuius.—In the beginning of that chapter, after informing us that he 
made his firft campaign in Cantabria, as a tribune, he immediately 
proceeds to tell us that his next military ftep was to lead an army to 
the eaft, &c.— Dehide dufto ad orientem exercitu, regnum Armenia? 
Tigrani reftituit, ac pro tribunali diadema impofuit. Recepit et 
figna quae M. Craffo ademerant Partin—'This he fays in the beginning 
of this chap.—In the conclufion of the fame, after having faid, in 
general, that he difeharged all offices fooner than others, and paffed 
from one to another almoft without intermiffion—Magiftratus et 


/ 


/ 


I » 

11 

1 , , ' 

Tiberius born Nov. u. c. 711 . 

maturius inchoavit, et pens jun&im percurrit—he adds—Quaefturam, 
Prasturam, Confulatum: interpofitoque tempore, Cos. itcrum, etiam 
Tribunitiam poteftatem in quinquennium accepit.—May we then 
conclude from this that he was made praetor when he, as Suetonius 
fays, iii. 14, led the army, through Macedonia, to the call? If fo, 
he feems to have been made praetor u. c. 732, for in that year, 

Strabo fays, Auguftus fent him from Samos into Armenia—and in 

/ 

the next year Eufebius Chron. Can.* and the authorf of Chr. Syngr. 
fay that he was in Armenia and recovered the ftandards which were 
taken by the Parthians from M. Craffus. 

Dion, we know, fays, 1 . 52, p. 447, C., that the age recom¬ 
mended to Auguftus by Maecenas for praetors was 30. And, 1 . 53, 

/ 

p. 515, B., that Tiberius was permitted to enter on all offices 5 years 
before the ufual ftanding, but he alfo fays, 1 . 54, p. 527, D., that 
Auguftus, the very next day, after his return from Syria, u. c. 735, 
when Tiberius was in his 24th, gave him praetorian honors, and at 
the fame time permitted Drufus alfo to ftand for all honors 5 years 
before the ufual time.—And, 1 . 54, p. 534, B., that the Senate, u. c. 
738, paffed a decree that Drufus, who was then in his 25th year, 
ihould be praetor, for the remainder of the time, inftead of Tiberius, 
who was then going to attend Auguftus into Gaul. Where he com¬ 
manded, fays Suetonius, iii. 9, a year. 

Another office which we fliall notice in order to difeover the age of 
Tiberius, is that of conful.—Now Tiberius difeharged this office in 
the year of Rome 741, that is, as Dion fays, 5 years after he had re- 

* AOAAIOS xat AEniAOS—T iGepios Ap^cmay vap^craro. 

•f Pn0—r .*—Kaiexp ras as K pxcraos n >o ruv Tlxp^uv) w xQvpyiJ.wos av&xGe 3 

K2 









12 


Tiberius born Nov. 'u . c\ 711 . 

ceived praetorian honors—or 5 years after 735—as did alfo Drufus in 
the year 745, and as Paterculus fays, ii. 97, at the age of 30, which 
was fomewhat more than 5 years after Drufus was praetor.—Now as 
Drufus was made conful at 30, why fhould we not conclude that 
Tiberius alfo was made conful at that age ? 

. f •>' v 

\ . * v - • 


J 








* • 

j 


I 




CHAPTER II, 


Tiberius went to Rhodes early in 749, and returned in 

July 755 . 

. A little before Tiberius was made conful ii. he had, fays Pater- 
cuius, ii. 94, conquered all Germany.—It was on this account that he, 
as Dion fays, 1 . 55, p. 553, C., obtained, early in that year, a fecond 
triumph.-—In the mean time, continues Paterculus in the next chap. 
98, Pifcr fubdued Thrace, and procured fecurity for Alia and Mace¬ 
donia.—By thofe two chapters, it appears that all nations were, in 
the beginning of the year 747, when Tiberius was ii. conful, at peace. 

Soon after the aforefaid events had taken place, Tiberius was, fays 
Paterculus, ii. 99, inverted with the tribunitial power, and, in that 
refpedt, made equal to Auguftus. This mark of dirtin&ion, Dion 
feems to fay, 1 . 55, p. 554, D., was conferred on him, u. c. 748, 
not as a reward for his fervices, but to check the afpiring pretenfions 
of the youths Caius and Lucius. But obferves he, inrtead of anfwer- 
ing the end intended, it only ferved to render both parties more 
dirtatisfied. Wherefore to avoid giving them offence, or, for lome, 
as Paterculus hints, more fubrtantial/reafon, this, as he fays of him, 
ii. 99, moft eminent of all citizens, but Augurtus, and fubordinate to 











14 


Tiberius at Rhodes from 749 to Juli) 755. 

him only by choice—this greateft of generals—this molt renowned as 
to character and fuccefs—and, to fpeak out the truth, this other 
luminary and head of the republic, when C. CaTar had' juft put on 
the toga virilis—cum C. Caefar fumpfiftet jam togam virilem—u. c. 
749, petitioned for leave to retire—and affigned as a reafon—“ left the 
fplendor of his exploits fhould difeourage the enterprifing fpirits of 
the youths,”—to this his father-in-law and mother, fays Suetonius, 
iii. 10, ftrenuoufly objefted—this made him, fays he, abftain from 
food four days, in the courfe of which time Auguftus feems to have 
complained in the fenate that he was deferted, (which furely implies 
that Tiberius was not baniftied, if not that Auguftus did not procure 
for him the tribunitial power, merely becaufe of the petulance of his 
grandfons.)—And not only Auguftus and his mother were moft deeply 
affected at the thought of lofing him, but alfo all his fellow citizens. 
To recite, fays Paterculus, ii. 99, what was the condition of the {late 
at the time—what the feelings of every individual—what tears were 
fhed at the thought of parting from fo great a perfon—how his 
country could fcarcely refrain from ufing force to detain him, would 
too much interrupt the prefent hiftory, and therefore would be better 
referved for a feparate narrative.—At laft he obtained his requeft.— 
But before he left Rome, he, fays Dion, 1 . 55, p. 554, E., opened 
his will before Auguftus and Livia, and read it.—Another proof that 
he was not baniftied.—All things being fettled, he, leaving his wife 
and fon behind him, went, with very few attendants, to Oftia. And 
then inftead of going immediately to Rhodes, he, fays Suetonius, iii. 11, 
travelled from place to place in Campania, for, as We {hall come to 
fee prefently, nearly a year, and early in the fpring 749 proceeded to 
Rhodes, not without office, but as prasfe£l of Armenia, which had, 
in the mean time, revolted, for no fooner had the rival ftates intelli¬ 
gence of his intention, than they entered into a confederacy—Senftt 


1 


I 


15 

Tiberius at Rhodes from 749 to July 755. 

terrarum orbis digreflum a cudodia Neronem urbis, nam et Parthus, 
defcifcens a focietate romana, adjecit Armenia manum; et Germania, 
aveifis domitoris fui oculis, rebellavit. ii. ioo.—At Rhodes he redded 
almofl as a private man, and on the mod cordial terms with the in¬ 
habitants more than fix years.* 

Heic modicis contentus aedibus, nee multo laxiore fuburbano 
genus vitse civile admodum indituit: fine li&ore aut viatore gymnafia 
interdum obambulans: mutuaque cum Grasculis officia ufurpans, 
prope ex aequo.—Here too, fays Suetonius, iii. 11, he gave the fird 
proof of his mod extraordinary philanthropy—for having one day 
early, intimated his intention of vifiting the fick, his attendants, mif- 
taking his meaning, ordered all of them to be carried to a public 
portico, and to be placed according to their diforders. Struck at the 

J| \ J v ‘ f 

inconvenience which the miflake had caufed, and, at a lofs for fome 

time how to a£t, he, at lad, went to every one of them, and made 

* 

an apology to each for what was done, even to the poored and mod 
obfcure.—His condant employment, while he redded here, ufed to 
be to attend the public fchools, and to liden to the lectures of the 
profeflors, dudying, as Tacitus fays, vi. 20, the chaldasan art—viz— 
adrology or adronomy, or, perhaps, mathematical truths, as, we 
find, by Suetonius, iii. 69, he was addi&ed to mathematics, with the 

* Whoever attends to what Paterculus says, ii. 99, of the time when 
Tiberius applied for leave to retire—viz—cum C. Caesar sumpsisset jam viriiem 
togam, Lucius item maturusesset viris—u. c. 749—may stand a chance of un¬ 
derstanding what Suetonius meant by—tantum non adversis tempestatibus, 
iii. 11$—and whoever attends to what Paterculus says of the time when Tibe¬ 
rius returned to Rome—viz—ante utriusque horum obitum—that is—before 
the 20th August u. c. 7 55;—or, as Cardinal Noris says—July 755, will be in¬ 
clined to think that he could not have been resident at Rhodes more than 
0 years and 4 or 5 months.—And as he resided at Rhodes no longer, and as 
Suetonius says, iii. —, that he returned the 8th year after his secession, may 
we not suppose, that he spent, at least, one year in Campania ? 









Tiberius at Rhodes from 749 to July 755. 

famous mathematician Thrafyllus, who, it feems, abode with him—» 
quern et fapientiae proreftorem contubernio admoverat, S. iii. 14—or, 
religious doftrines, under Jewifh Rabbi’s—viz—Theodorus of Ga- 
dara, (S. iii. 57,) and Diogenes* the grammarian, who ufed to difputc 
at Rhodes, on the fabbaths, iii. 32, by whom he probably was brought 
acquainted with the ftate of affairs in Judea, among the reft, with the 
difientions in Herod’s family, and with his uneafinefs in confequence 
of the arrival of the eaftern magi by the guidance of a new ftar, and 
the convocation of a fynod on that account, and the confequent 
maffacre of the infants at Bethlehem.—All the while he was in this 

1 

ifland, the greateft honors were, fays Paterculus, ii. 99, and Sueto¬ 
nius, iii. 12, paid to him by the eaftern prasfedts, (a third proof that 

« « 

he was not fent to Rhodes in difgrace) and, in particular by Caius, 
both on his vifit to the provinces, and on his expedition to Syria.— 
On his vifit to the provinces he, fays Suetonius, iii. 12, and Dion, 
i- 55 . p- 555 . D -> faw him either at Samos or Chius, and on his re¬ 
turn he again faw him at one of the fame iflands. Paterculus, who 
ii. 101, fays that he was prefent at the interview between Caius and 
the Parthian potentate, fays alfo, in the fame chapter, that Caius, in 
his way to Parthia, waited on Tiberius and lhewed him, as his 
fuperior, every mark of refpeft. 

In the year 755, fays he, ii. 103, P. V. Cos., while Caius and 
Lucius were ftill alive, a fhip was, without the knowledge of Tiberius, 
about Midfummer, fent for him.—A fourth proof that he was ftill in 
favor. Thus, fays Paterculus, did fortune reftore to the republic her 
wonted fupport, to the incredible joy of all ranks. When he arrived 
at Rome, Auguftus, not at all doubting whom he fliould choofe, but 
knowing that the eminent was the only perfon, wifhed to adopt; him 

Query—May not Diogenes have been the same as Theogenes mentioned ii. 94. 




IT 


\ 


Tiberius was at Rhodes from 749 to July 755. 

,* i 

immediately before the death of Caius, but Tiberius refolutely de¬ 
clined the honor. After the death of Caius, about July u. c. 757, 
Auguftus, at lait, prevailed.—-The joy of that day, the meetings of 
the people, the devotions of thofe who almoft thruft their thankful 
hands into heaven, and the hope that they entertained that the fecu- 
rity of the Roman empire was eternally eflablifhed, I, fays Paterculus, 
cannot here recount.—Let me only fay how very dear he was to all. 
Then fhone forth again a certain hope of children to parents—of 
marriage to men—of patrimony to mailers—of fafety, quiet, peace, 

s 

tranquility to every one—fo that nothing could be wifhed for more, 
nor more happily anfwer their expeflations. The fame joy was 

manifefted all through Italy, and the provinces of Gaul. Every one 

> , _ 

feemed to rejoice more on his own account, than on his. The foldiers 
fhed tears of joy, and prefled to touch his hand—exclaiming—Do we 
then fee you general again, and in fafety ?—I have fought under you 
in Armenia—I in Rhsetia—I was rewarded by you in Vindelicia—I in 
Pann.onia—I in Germany. 



1 


/ 


h 



I 


% 




/ 






\ 






-—- 

; - - • 

4 < 

CHAPTER III. 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years: 

By the preceding chronological fynoplis of the years of Tibe¬ 
rius, it appears, that the 36 year of Herod ended in the 730 of Rome, 
and, as Jofephus fays, A. xiv. 14, c ., before Midfummer in that year 
—confequently if Herod died in that year and before the 25th of 
December, our Lord muft, if he was, as both Matthew and Luke fay, 
born before the death of Herod, have been, at lateft, born in 749, 
and, as is thought on the 25th of December—and confequently, muft 
have attained his 30th year, not in the year of Rome 782, as we 
fuppofe, but in the year 779, or, the 12th of the monarchy of Tibe¬ 
rius. But was a cenfus begun in the year 749 ?—And was there then 
an univerfal peace ? Auguftus himfelf* tells us that he ftnifhed the 
fecond cenfus, not in the year 746 when Cenforinus and Afinius 
Gallus were confuls, but in the year 752 when he himfelf, the cenfor , 
and Gallus Caninius were confuls—Cenfore me et Caninio Cofs.— 
and if he ended it in the year 752 he muft have begun it, in the year 

. 1 

* Ancyr. mar. 


1 4 • * ' ♦ 

-v 










I 


19 

i 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years. 

'747, when Tiberius was conful, in which year there was, as Pater¬ 
culus fays, ii. 98, an univerfal peace, which, fubjoins he, did not 
laft long after Tiberius had determined to retire—that is—after 748. 

And if he had not told us fo, we might, as we know that Tiberius, 

\ 

who was, by all accounts, the conftant defence of the republic, was 
then conful, and at Rome, and prefently after retired, have readily 

1 j « p 

believed it.—That a cenfus was about that year made, Jofephus him- 
Telf feems to have attefted, A. xvii. 2, where he refers to a certain 
fine which had been laid on 7,000 Pharifees, who, when an oath to 
Caefar was required of all the Jews, refufed to take it. When this 
oath was required he does not dire&ly intimate, but it is not very 
difficult to guefs pretty nearly at the time by almoft indubitable 
criteria. For in the end of A. xiv, Jofephus fays, that Jerufalem was 
taken in the year of Rome 717—and before Midfummer, and the 
xv and xvi books contain, he fays, the tranfa&ions of 30 years, 
and therefore end before Midfummer 747, when Herod had reigned 
33 years. And confequently as this event is referred to in the fecond 
chap, of the xvii book, and as having taken place fome time before, 
we may fairly fuppofe that it is probable that it happened about 747 
or early in 748. Was then our Lord born in the year 747 ? If fo, 
he muft have attained his 30th year u. c. 777, and in the beginning 
of the 10th of Tiberius.—That our Lord was born before December 
749 cannot be eafily made to appear from what Matthew and Luke 
fay—but from what Matthew and Jofephus fay, it might be made to 
appear that he was born December 747. For Matthew, we know, by 
faying that Jofeph, was, while in Egypt, informed that they were 
dead, intimates that one or two others, belide Herod, fought to kill 
the young child.—Now who were thofe other confpirators ?—Jofephus 








I 


/ 


20 

\ 

' -x I 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

s 

informs us, A. xvii. i. *. 2. B. i. 29. that Herod, about 3 years 
before his death, refigned the management of public bulinets to Anti- 
pater and Pheroras, who had been the caufe of the deaths of Alex¬ 
ander and Aridobulus.* Soon after, 3. j 3 , thofe two had obtained 
the direction of affairs, they, unaccountably, both became very un- 
eafy, and contrived to withdraw from Judea. Antipater fird obtained 
leave to go to Rome—and Pheroras, A. xvii. 3. 7. B. i. 29. o., went 
foon after to his tetrarchy, under a vow never to return more. When 
Antipater went to Rome, it is not faid, but may be inferred from the 
fequel—Syllceus, A. xvii. 3. / 3 .—B. i. 29. 7-f went to Rome at the fame 
time, and Saturninus was then governor of Syria.—Now Saturninus, 
we know, was fucceeded by Varus, u. c. 748, as appears by a fmall 
coin which the latter (truck, of which Pagi. Appar. ad Baron, n. 136, 
on the authority of Cardinal Noris, fays, that there are (till extant 
feveral which were (truck by him while prelident of Syria—the earlieft 
of which has on the reverfe a woman fitting with her foot on the 
figure of the Orontes, with a palm in her right hand, with the 
following infcription—Em oyaPon antioxEhn— and in the middle 
the letters —KE—that is—xxv.—By which it appears that Varus mud 
have been in Syria before September 2d, u. c. 748.—For the sera 
which the Antiochians ufed, at that time, was that of the vi&ory of 
A&ium, which was obtained September the ad, u. c. 743.—Con- 
fequently the xxv. of this aera mud have ended September the 2d, 

1 

> 

* Probably for having accused them of being in the interest of the Parthians. 

f 

■j* wn^ofiAu, os Arri'iratrpu y.xi 'Lv\ 7 .xtos o Apx-^/ y.v$ev u? •jrpoa’irx^s Kxicrxp 

oixTrs'rrpxy^svos. A. 

EwAEVO’g os xxi ’ZvaKxios 0 Apx-^ sin Pm/av?, '/)[as\yix.cijs (asv tx'v Kxicxpos 7 rposxy- 

P'.xruv^ xyuvt^iAsvos os npos AvrnTxrpov. B. 

A . > 

•V • 


, 21 

\ * 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

u. c. 748. If then Yarns fucceeded Saturninus before the 2d Septem¬ 
ber in that year, it is clear that Antipater mufl have gone to Rome, 
nobody knows how long before.—That Antipater mufl have been a 
long while at Rome we may infer from the various particulars which, 
Jofephus fays, happened during his abfence—for, after he left Jeru- 
falem, which it feems, he did, not long after he was made every 
thing—that is—not long after the 33d year of Herod was ended, 
Herod quarrelled fo much with Pheroras, on account of the protection 
which his wife afforded the 7,000 Pharifees, that he forbad him his 
prefence, and Pheroras fwore that he would never fee him more.— 
A little after this Herod was taken ill, and fent for Pheroras, who, as 
he had Avorn, refufed to fee him.—Pheroras was then taken ill and 
Herod went to fee him. Soon after Pheroras died. After his death, 
it was fufpeCted that he died of poifon, and on an enquiry it was 
found that he did, and that Syllceus, the Arabian, was privy to it.— 
This enquiry led to a difeovery that Antipater had been plotting 
againfl the life of his father.—His guilt was proved feven months 
before he knew it at Rome. From Rome he went to Tarentum, 
where he was informed of the death of Pheroras, from thence he 
failed to Cilicia, and, at Celendris, received a letter from Herod, in 
which his mother was blamed, which made him fufpeft all was not 
right, however he proceeded on to Sebafle, and fo to Jerufalem, where 
he was imprifoned, and put to death five days before Herod died. 

It is pretty clear then that Antipater went to Rome before Varus 
went to Syria—that is—before the 2d September, 748. And there¬ 
fore as our Lord was more than a month old when the children were 
mafiacred at Bethlehem, that he may have, with i heioras, bs.eii con¬ 
cerned in that mafiacre. 

\ ' ■ / , 


( 


1 


\ ' 

22 

\ \ 

August us and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

i , 

i ' ^ 

Befides—If, as the Talmud of Jerufalem fays, the power of punifli- 
ing capitally was taken from Ifrael 40 years before the deftruffion of 
that city—that is—40 years before 823—or—in 783—and in the 

. - v • 

16th of Tiberius, the perfecution of Saul mull have then ceafed.— 
And, if that perfecution did not begin till the year following the cru¬ 
cifixion, and lafted about two years, our Lord muft have been, at 
lateft, crucified u. c. 781, or—the 14th of Tiberius. 

By the help of the fame evidence of the above-mentioned document, 
we may perceive that Jofephus too feems to have intimated the fame 
thing, A. xviii. 4. where he, after having mentioned the crucifixion 
of our Lord, fays that a vagabond Jew, who had fled from his own 
country to avoid the punifhment due to his tranfgrefiions of the laws, 
and had found an afylum at Rome,* was the caufe of the expulfion 
of all his countrymen from that city—for, if that Jewifh vagabond 
left Judea to avoid the penalty of the law, he muft have left it before 
the power of punifhing capitally had been taken from Ifrael—that is— 
before 783. And, of courfe, our Lord, who appears to have been 
crucified before this wretch left Judea, muft have been crucified, 
nobody knows how long, before that year. But why, it may he 
afked, if he left Judea before the power of inflicting, capital punifh¬ 
ment had been taken from the Jews, did they not avail themfelves 
of their boafted privilege and endeavour to feize him at Rome, as 
Saul did other delinquents in other ftrange cities ? If he was not a 

* Hv xwip I ttoxtos, (psvyxs puv ty,s avTts, xxrr,yopix rs irxpxZxasus vx^jluv xxi 

<$EEl TlfAUpiXS TV)S E7T XVTOIS , 7 TOVYlfOS $£ £/S T» 'KXVTX, XXI 5?) TOTE £V TV) Pu!/j.V) 

(Iixitw/aevos, nr poem oil no /aev s^rtysiaOxi aotyixv vo(aojv tuv Mwt nsus, 'rrpox'noitaxpAEvos 
te Tpsts xv'Spxs sis rx Vxvrx oixoiorpoTTHS, thtois s7Ti<poiTvia-x<Txv <t>«A £iav, ruv sv 
ai-ixixxTi yvvxixcjy xxt vo^i/aois 'npocrsXviXvOi/xv rois I t^xixois, msiOaai •noptyvpxv xxu 
ffiVTiov sis to sv lspootXv[AOts ispov $ IXTSc^/XCrOxi. 





23 

i 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years . 

worfhipper of Chrift they farely had ftill the power of feizing him 
any where. May we not therefore furmife that this notorious tranf- 
grelfor of the laws was no other than a worfhipper of Chrift ? And 
that he was therefore, in the eftimation of Jofephus and his unbelieving 
brethren, fo very execrable ? This fuppofition, however novel it 
may appear, we find ourfelves obliged to adopt, not only by noticing 
the neglc£t of the Jews to profecute him, but by obferving that he, 
bad as he was, could obtain accefs to Fulvia a profelyted lady of 
diftin&ion, and that Tiberius, on his account, permitted the expulfion 
of all the Jews from Rome, and the banifhment of the Jewifh liber¬ 
tines to Sardinia. And though it does not tend dire£tly to eftablifh 
our original point—viz—the year in which our Lord was put to death 
—yet, as it implies that the gofpel was, without molejlation , permitted 
to be preached at Rome before the expulfion of the Jews from Rome 
and the tranfportation of the libertines to Sardinia—that is—before 
the 18th year of Tiberius, it will be found to imply pretty fatisfa&orily 
that our Lord was crucified, nobody knows how long before the 15th 
of Tiberius,* and confequently that he, as he is faid by John to have 
celebrated three, if not four paffovers, in the courfe of his miniftry, 
poflibly attained his 30th year in the 10th of Tiberius. 

But what ? Does our Lord really appear to have been born 747 } 
And to have entered on his 30th year u. c. 777—that is the 10th of 
Tiberius ? Why then h as Luke told us that he entered on it, on the 
15th of Tiberius, u. c. 782 ? Did he by the 15th mean only the 10th > 
Of this we may be allured that if he really means the 15th of his 

* This accounts for Josephus’ appearing, A. xviii. 3, 4, to have omitted 
the events of 8 or 10 years in the short period of 32;—in the end of chapter 3, 
he mentions the death of Gcrmanicus, who died u. c. (72; and in the begin* 
ning of chapter 4, he mentions the offence of Pilate by introducing the Roman 
standards at Jerusalem after u. c. 780. 


/ 


24 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

\ 

/ 

monarchy he pofitively aflerts that he was born u. c. 752—that is 
after the death of Herod—and confequently contradicts not only the 
evidence of Matthew, but alfo his own in the two preceding chapters, 
if notin the ACts iv. 27—for in the beginning of the firft he fays— 
“ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea,”—and, in that 
of the fecond—“ And it came to pafs in thofe days, &c.”—And he 
not only appears to contradict his own teftimony, and that of Matthew 
too, but likewife that of John, who fays that our Lord, at the firft 
paflover which he celebrated after he begun his miniftry—that is—in 
the 15th of Tiberius u. c. 782, obferved to the Jews, at Jerufalem, 
that the temple had been building 40 and 6 years, and confe¬ 
quently it mull, if Luke has been underftood rightly, have been 
begun 736.—But what fays Jofephus of the time when it was 
begun?—He fays, B. i. 21. that Herod, in the 15th year of his 
reign u. c. 732, at a vaft expence, began both to decorate the 
temple, and to enclofe a fpace around it as large again as the 
former —otvrov rs vccov tittcrv-EvccfTE y.a.i r»v %zpi ocvrov a.vtrzr^ia-oe.To yupxi 
tyis ums Ih'nXoKTia.v — as a proof of the immenfe expence it mull have 
coft, he inftances the' flately porticos around the temple, (among 
which, no doubt, was that called Solomon’s,) and the fortrefs on the 
north, where the pontifical habits ufed to be kept. Now if he began 
to do all this in the 15th year of his reign, why may he not be faid 
to have then begun the building of the temple ? And if fo it muft 
have been 46 years a building, not in the year 782, but in 778—the 
loth year of the monarchy of Tiberius, and the 30th of our Lord’s 
age.—He alfo fays indeed, A. xv. 11. a., that it was begun in the 
18th year of Herod, u. c. 735—after the arrival of Caefar in Syria.— 
But then he feems to refer to the fame event—\iz—to the beautifying 
of the temple and the enlarging ot the feptum——T ote yuv oKT<oxou<$Ex.xTtt 

tvs HfwJa fiotrtXews ysyovoros tviocvTUj ftsTx t<xs TTposipv/^tvas npix^zts, tpyov ¥ to 


25 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years. 

^ \ • «) * 

TVJ%pv VTTtQoc'hlTO, TOV VSMV T« ©fS 0 / OLVTH Y.XTX.'TX.ZVXrTa.crGcU > TS tut 

M 

, nipiGo‘\ov > xxt •jrpos v^os a^ioTrpurss'xTov zysipstv. a. r. A.— *-Confequently, why 
fhould we not fuppofe that, by thole two dates, Jofephus meant to 
refer to the two commencements of Herod’s reign—viz—by the 
former, to the capture of Jerufalem—and by the latter, to his fir ft 
being made king ? And, that he therefore in both works means the 
fame thing? If he does not, but by the 18th of Herod he alfo means 
from the conqueft of Jerufalem—and therefore u. c. 735, then our 
Lord muft have faid this 781, for 735X46=781—which was not the 
15th but the 13th year of Tiberius, and the 30th year of our Lord— 
in which cafe our Lord muft have been born after the death of Herod, 

and, could not, as a fabbatical year did not, in that cafe, happen in the 

• 

courfe of his miniftry, have celebrated a jubilee.—That it is, at leaft, 
not certain that he meant to fay that Herod began the temple 18 years 
after the capture of Jerufalem—or—u. c. 735, is clear, becaufe this 
book contains only the events of 18 years* from that time, and yet 
in the conclufion of it, we find, he fpeaks of the finifhing of the 
temple, that is, at leaft, of the ferviceable part of it, which he fays, 
was completed in a year and fix months, and, that it was opened on 
the anniverfary of Herod’s reign—that is—exactly at the expiration 
of 18 years from the taking of Antigonus and Jerufalem—or—u. c. 
735. Now if the priefts finifhed the more facred part in a year and 
fix months, can we fuppofe, that the materials, for that part, were 
collected in Iefs time ? If not, we find, that Herod muft: have begun 
to build it 3 years before the end of the 18th year of his reign—that 
is—at the end of the 15th. 

* / 

* He says it in the title—and, we find it contains the transactions from the 
capture of Jerusalem, u. c. 717, till the anniversary of Herod's reign, after 
the arrival of Caesar in Syria, u. c. 735. 


I 


/ 




26 4 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years. 

Luke then, notwithflanding his profelfion, at the outlet of giving 
us a more correCt account of the life of Chrift than others, notwith- 
ftanding his precifion in this very cafe, appears to have made a moll 
glaring anachronifm;—and, in contradiction, not only of his own, . 
previous teftimony, but alfo of that of two companions of that moil 
extraordinary perfon.—But this furely we cannot fuppofe that any 
biographer would have done in the ihort life of any one, efpecially 
of one fo eminent and a cotemporary, much lefs a biographer, who 
wrote to corredt the inaccuracies of others, and on wliofe production 
the eyes of the unbelieving world were fixed. 

Now if, even by the account of Luke, as well as by that of 
Matthew, John, and Jofephus, our Lord appears to have been born 
before the death of Herod, and to have entered on his 30th year, not 
as Luke fays, in the 15th of Tiberius, but in the ioth, may not Luke 
have called the noth of his monarchy the 15th of his reign.—Let us 
not fpare any pains to fatisfy ourfelves. 

It is generally admitted by hiftorians that Auguitus, a few years 
before he died, made Tiberius his colleague in the government of the 
Roman affairs.—But in what year this event happened none of thofe 
hiftorians have attempted to fiiew. Some think it took place in the 
year of Rome 764, when M. iEm. Lepidus and T. S. Taurus were, • 
confuls—and, about three years before the death of Auguftus.— 
Clemens of Alexandria, fays, Strom, p. 339, that fome maintained 
that the reign of Tiberius lafted 26 years 6 months and 19 days.—If 
this account be true, Tiberius muft have begun to reign in the year of 
Rome 763—but, according to Luke, he mufl have begun a year 
earlier.—Let us enquire which of thofe three opinions appears to be ' 

1 

neareft the truth.—And firft let us confult the evidence of Paterculus 
on this point. 



Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years . 

Paterculus, fpeaking of what happened after the conqueft of Bato 

and Pinetes, u. c. 761, F. C. and S. N. Cofs. ii. 114, fays, in the 

* 

end of that chapter—Autumno viCtor in hyberna reducitur exercitus, 
cujus omnibus copiis a Ccejare (a Caefaribus?*) M. Lepidus pr&TeCtus 
eft, vir nominis ac fortunae eorum proximus.—In the courfe of that 
winter, or, rather perhaps, in the end of it, u. c. 762, after Tiberius 
had, as Dion fays, 1 . 56, init., triumphed, either Tiberius alone, or, 
Tiberius in conjunction with Auguftus, placed M. Lepidus over all 
the forces. 

* 

In the next chapter—Adz—115th, he fays of the fame Lepidus—- 
Initio aeftatis—fcil. 762, Lepidus, eduCto hibernis exercitu, per gentes 
integras immunefque adhuc clade belli, ct eo ferociores ac traces, 
tcndens ad Tiberium imperatorem, &c. pervenit ad Csefarem; et ob 
ea, quae fi propriis gefliflet aufpiciis, triumphare debuerat, ornamentis 
triumphalibus, confentiente cum judicio [irincijium voluntate fenatus, 
donatus eft.—By this extract it appears that Lepidus was, in the year 
762, by the joint approbation of the princes , rewarded with triumphal 
honors. 

In the 120th chapter, he fays—Mis auditis revolat ad patrem Caefar: 
perpetuus patronus romani imperii adfuetcim fibi caufam fufcipit.— 
Paterculus is here fpeaking of the defeat of Varus, who, as Dion fays, 
1 . 56, p. 582, C., was defeated in the winter of 763 By this it appears 
that Tiberius, on hearing of that defeat, haftened immediately to 
Rome, to give direCIions, as ufual, for the fecurity of the Roman 
empire. 

* Omnino u a Cjesaribus” Lips. 


28 




• % 

t 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

' / i 

In the next chapter, the 121ft, he fays—Eadem et virtus et fortuna 
fubfequenti tempore ingrefla animam imperatoris Tiberii fuit, qua* 

/ 

initio fuerat; qui.cum.molliftet, et fenatus populufque 

romanus (poftulante patre ejus ut aequum ei jus in omnibus provinciis 

exercitibufque eftet, quam erat ipfi) decreto complex us eftet, (etenim 

* 

abfurdum erat in urban rev erf us , jampridem debitum, fed 

continuatione bellorum dilatum, ex Pannonicis Dalmatifque egit 
triumphum.—By this we learn that Tiberius, after he had been in¬ 
verted with authority equal to that of Auguftus, returned u. c. 765, 
to Rome, and triumphed not only over the Pannonians but alfo over 
the Dalmatians. 

* • ‘ . ^ » 

In the 123d chapter, he fays—Commendans illi fua atque i/ifus 
opera. —By this we are informed that Auguftus, on his death bed, re¬ 
commended to Tiberius their joint works. 

\ 1 

Laftly, in the 129th, he fays—Sed propoftta quart univerfa princi- 

patus Tiberii forma, lingula recenfeamus.Quibus praeceptis in- 

ftru&um Germanicum fuum, imbutumque rudimentis militias fecum 
a&ae, domitorem recepit Germanise?—Quibus juventam ejus exagge- 
ravit honoribus , refpondente cultu triumphali rerum quas geflerat 
magnitudini, &c. ?—By this we are informed, that one of the moft 
memorable deeds of Tiberius, while prince, was, the heaping of 
honors on Germanicus while a youth, that is furely, as Dion fays, 
1 . 5b, p. B., at lateft, in the year 763* for he was then decorated 
with triumphal inftgnia, and admitted to praetorian honors, and allow¬ 
ed to ftand for the confulfhip before the time appointed. But whether 
he could then be properly called a youth will perhaps be queftioned, 
for he was then 24.—Befides—it feems that this was not the firft time 
that he had been fent to announce a vidory, for Dion fays— x «< rm. 






^ ' \ 

% ' 

» ■ ' 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years. 

V 

He may have been fent to announce the vi£lory for which Tiberius 
triumphed u. c. 762, for we find by Dion, 1 . 55, p. 569, C., that he 
was in 760, foon after the breaking out of the Pannonian war, fent, 

when quaeftor and only 19, with the new levies to Tiberius.* 

< 

The fum of the teftimonies of Paterculus on this point, amounts 

* 

to this—In the year 762 either Tiberius alone, or Tiberius in con¬ 
junction with Auguflus, placed M. Lepidus over all the forces.— 
Tiberius and Auguflus rewarded Lepidus with triumphal honors.— 
Tiberius, in the year 763, on hearing of the defeat of Varus haflened 
to Rome immediately, to give directions, as ufual , for the fecurity of 
the Roman empire.—Tiberius, after he had been inverted with 
authority equal to that of Auguflus, triumphed over the Pannonians 
and Dalmatians.—Auguflus, on his. death bed, recommended to 
Tiberius their joint works.—Tiberius, while prince, heaped honors 
on Germanicus when a youth. 

1 v *. 

This being the fum of what Paterculus fays—why fhould we not 
conclude from it that Tiberius was, u. c. 762, made equal to 
Auguflus in every thing ? 

Let us now attend to what Suetonius fays of the length of this im¬ 
portant period. 

He fays, iii. 15, that from the banifhment of Agrippa in the year 
760, nothing was omitted that might ferve to increafe the majejly of 
Tiberius.—Nihil ex eo tempore praetermifTum eft ad majejlatem ejus 
augendam, ac multo magis poftquam, Agrippa abdicato ac fepoftto, 
certum erat, uni fpem fucceffionis incumbere. 

, V 

* Dion seems to intimate also that Augustus sent him because he suspected 
-that Tiberius wag dilatory.—Had Dion seen the letter from Augustus to Tibe¬ 
rius, al that very time, commending his caution and prudence, (which letter 
may be still seen Suetonius iii. 21,) he would hardly have said so. 


/ 


% 


30 

7 ~ ' >• x ~ ^ , • 

/ 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years . 

In the next chapter—viz—x6th, he fays—that Tiberius, being 

% % 4 i . 

again inverted with the tribunitial power for five years , was fent into 

Germany to fettle the affairs of that country—and—that while he . 

< *•' 

was there, ambafladors from Parthia arrived at Rome, who, having 

A 

delivered their credentials to Auguftus, were ordered to attend Tibe¬ 
rius in Germany.—Data rurfius poteftas tribunitia in quinquennium: 
delegatus pacandae Germanise flatus: Parthorum legati, mandatis 
Augufto Romas redditis, eum quoque adire in Provinciam jufti.—Now 
that thole Parthian ambafladors fhould, after having delivered their 
credentials to Auguftus, at Rome, have been ordered to attend Tibe¬ 
rius in Germany, muft be allowed to be not a little remarkable.—But 
when did thofe Parthian ambaffadors arrive at Rome ?—Scil.—When 
Tiberius was in Germany fettling the affairs of that country. But 
when did he fettle the affairs of Germany ?—Was it before or after 
the Pannonian war ? Clearly before—as appears by the fequel. For 
he proceeds thus—Sed nuntiata Illyrici defeftione, tranfiit ad curam 
novi belli:—which, continues he, next to the Punic, was the moft 
grievous, and lafted three years. But, at the expiration of that time, 
he was victorious, having fubdued all the country between the 
Adriatic and the Danube. 

Thofe Parthians then, it feems, arrived at Rome about the year 

759, and juft after Auguftus, as Dion fays, 1 . 55, p. 567, B., ordered 

three confulars to hear moft foreign embaflles. 

• — 

In the next chapter—viz—17th, he fays that, for the exploits 

which he performed in the courfe of thofe three years—that is—759, 

760, and 761, a triumph and many and great honors were decreed 

him, and among the reft, that he fhould be entitled Pannonicus._ 

This triumph, fays he, was deferred, on account of the defeat of 



/ 


31 ‘ 

%Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years, 

\ arus, which, fays he, happened at the fame time.* Neverthelefs, 
lays lie, he entered Rome wearing a pnetexta, and crowned with 
laurel, and, the Senate Handing, he afcended a tribunal placed in the 
fepta, and there, with Augullus, fat between the two confuls. 

In the 20th chapter, he fays that Tiberius ordered Bato, the chief 
of the Pannonians, whom he had rewarded with coftly prefents, to 
refide at Ravenna.—A Germania in urbem p,oJl biennium regreftus, 
triumphum, quern diftulerat, egit: ...: Batonem Pannonicum ducem, 
ingentibus donatum praemiis Ravennam tranftulit. Prandium dein 
populo et congiarium dedit. Dedicavit et Concordise aedem: item, &c.f 

In the 2ill chapter he fays—Ac non multo poll (Lege per Cons, 
lata, ut provincias cum Augufto communiter adminiftraret, Jimulque 
cenfum ageret, condito lujlro) in Illyricum profe£lus eft.—By this it 
appears that this law was palfed, before the laft cenfus or luftrum was 
begun, becaufe, at the fame time that it gave to Tiberius the fame 
power as Auguftus had over the provinces, (and, indeed, if we may 
believe Paterculus, chapter 121, over the armies,) it alfo gave him a 
power over the civil organization of the Romans equal to that of 
Auguftus.. And as that cenfus or luftrum was ended before the death 
of Auguftus, and lafted, as every cenfus or luftrum did, five years* 
why fhould we not fuppofe that it began five years before his death— 
that is—in the year of Rome 762, when Q. S. Camerinus and C. P. 
Sabinus were confuls?—And again, in the courfe of the fame chapter, 

* Dion, who will not allow that Varus was, at this time defeated, says, 
1. 56, init., that this was a perfect triumph, attended, as usual, with sports • 
an d—beside those several circumstances mentioned by Suetonius, adds some 
others, one of which wc shall presently have occasion to notice. 

+ Dion says, 1 . 56 , p. 586, B., that the dedication of this temple to 

Concord happened u. c. 7 64. 


I 




32 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years* 

r % 

Suetonius fays, that Augudus, in feveral of his letters, addrefied 
Tiberius, as a mod experienced general, and as being the only fafe- 
guard of the Roman people—unicum praefidium populi romani—-a 
copy of one of thofe which he wrote to him in Pannonia, before the 
conqued of Bato, he fubjoins—in which, he fays, every one fpoke 
with admiration of his prudence and circumfpe<dion, and laments 
that he can no longer confult him as ufual. —Vale jucundijfme Tiberi\ 

j 

et remgerc fehciter , ha.oi xxi txis Mexxis s-pxrYiywv.— jucundijfme , ct ita fm 
fellx , vir fortijfme , et dux , vo^i^utxtz. — Vale, ct ordincm afivorum 

tuorum - . Ego vero , mi Tiberi , et inter tot rerum difficultates , 

kxi roaxvrviv pxOv[xixv rpareyo//,£vwv non potuijfe quenquam Jirudcnhus gcrcrc 
fe , quam iu gejferis, exijlimo. Hi quoque , qui tecum fuerunt omnes, 
confitentur verfum ilium in te [lojfe did , 

Unus homo nobis vigilando redituit rem. 

Sive (inquit) quid incidit , de quo fit cogitandum diligentius, five quid 
fomachor valde , medius fidius Tibet ium meum defdero: fuccurritque 
v erf us ille Homericus .— 

■ l 

Tara S' sen to//.evo<o, y.xt ek mpos xiQg(aevoio 
A[A<pU VG^aXlU-BVy E 7 TEI HEpl Ol^E VOVaXI. 

Attenuatum te ejje continuation laborum cum audio ct lego , Dii me Jicr- 
dant , nip cohorrefcit cor/ius meum: teque rogo ut Jiarcas tibi: ne f te 
langutre audierimus , et ego et mater tua ex/iiremus ; ct dc fumma imperii 
fui Populus Romanus periclitetur. Nihil intereft valcam ipfe ncc ne , fi tu 
non valebis. Deos obfecro ut te nobis confcrvcnt , et valcre nunc ct 
femper patiantur , f non Populum Romanum jierofi funt. 

r 

Now if this letter of Augudus to Tiberius was written during the 
Pannonian war—that is—before the year 762, Tiberius mud, even 

4 

then, and by the tedimony of Augudus himfelf, have been generally 
confidered, as the only fupport of the Roman greatnefs, and, con- 


1 



33 


» ' t 

i 

* i 

*Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years . 

fequently, mull have been thought worthy of being made equal to 
Auguftus—and—as Auguftus declared himfelf even then fo very 
defirous of his advice on great occafions, and fent the Parthian am- 
bafladors to him when in Germany, and afterwards permitted him to 
appoint Lepidus commander in chief, and Sabinus conful, and made 
him his colleague in the cenforfhip, can we wonder, if he alfo made 
him his colleague in other things, efpecially if Auguftus was then fo 
very infirm as not to be able to tranfad bufinefs without the aftiftance 
of others ? 

Again—chapter 42, he fays—Poftea Princejis in ipfa publicorum 
morum correptione cum Pomponio Flacco et L. Pifone noftem con- 
tinuumque biduum epulando potandoque confumpfit: quorum alteri 

Syriam provinciam, alteri praefe&uram urbis confejiim detulit.—By 

» 

this we learn that he, in the time of a cenfus, which always lafted 
five years, made Pomp. Flaccus the governor of Syria, and L. Pifo 
praefeft of the city.—But in what year did Tiberius difpofe of two 
fuch important offices? By the report of Tacitus he did it in the year 
765—for he fays, vi. 10, n, that Pifo had then been 20 years pnefe6t 
of the city.—Confequently he muft have have been made prsefedt, by 
Tiberius, in the year 765. 

The laft paftage which we fliall notice in this writer occurs in the 

♦ 

4th chapter of the fifth book, in which he gives a tranfcript of another 
letter of Auguftus, not indeed to Tiberius, but to Livia—Collocutus 
fum, cum Tiberio, ut mandafti mea Livia quid nepoti tuo Tiberio 
faciendum eftet ludis Martialibus. Confentit autem uterque noftrum, 

femel efte nobis ftatuendum quod confilium in illo fequamur.. 

Nam femper adtuabimns, ft de fmgulis articulis temporum deliberabi- 

N 


l 


s. 


34 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

mus, fxv) vfovTroy.znjt.tvii v,(xiv pofle eum gerere honores arbitremur nec ne.... 
Cur enim non Jirteficitur urb'i , 11 poteft fratrem fuum fequi in montem. 
By this letter of Auguftus to Livia, as well as by that before recited 
to Tiberius, it feems that Auguftus confulted Tiberius on important 
occafions. It has been thought that the occalion which produced this 
letter was the appointed proceftion of Germanicus, the brother of 
Claudius, as conful, to the Alban Mount.—If that was the occalion 
on which it was written, it muft have been written in the year 765— 
the very year in which Tiberius, we have juft feen, made L. Pifo the 
pra?fe£t of Rome, in preference to Claudius. 

By thofe feveral extracts from Suetonius, it appears that Tiberius 
exercifed feveral a£ts of fovereignty before the year 765—or rather-— 
five years before the death of Auguftus—viz—from the year 762— 
and—that in that year the law was palled to enable him to aftlft in 
making a cenfus. 

Let us now attend to what Tacitus fays of the imperial funftions 

, % 

of Tiberius before he fucceeded Auguftus. 

* ~i < * - 

In the firft book of his annals we meet with feveral references to 
his having been, feveral years before the death of Auguftus, inverted 
with them—and, in other parts of that fame work with as many more. 

B. i. c. 3*“~“hlc fays Drufoque pridem exftindto, Nero folus e 
privignis erat: illic cundta vergere: filius, collega imperii, confors tribu- 
nitiae poteftatis adfumitur, omnifque per exercitus oftentatur: non, &c. 

'• • c * 6.—ble fays—Primum facinus novi principatus fuit, Poll- 

humi Agrippas caedes. 

lie alfo fays in the fame chapter——Salluftius Crilpus monuit ne 
neve Tiberius vim JirinciJiaius refolveret, cun&a ad fenatum yocando. 



35 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years. 

—• —• c. 8.—He fays—Addebat Meflala Valerius, remvandum per 
annos facramentum in nomen Tiberii. 

■ \ i ' - ; . 

0 X 

—. —. c. IO.—He fays—Etenim Auguftus, Jiaucis ante annis , cum 
Tiberio tribunitiam a patribus rurfnm poftularet, quanquam honora 
oratione, qusedam de habitu cultuque^et inftitutis ejus jecerat, quae 
velut excufando exprobraret. 

—• —• c. ii.—H e fays—Verfte inde ad Tiberium preces. Et ille 
varie diflerebat, de magnitudine imperii, fua modeftia: folum Div-i 
Augufti mentem tantae molis capacem: fe in [mrtem curdrum ab ilk 
vocatum , experiendo didicifle, quam arduum, quam fubjeftum for- 

tunse, regendi cun£la onus. 

* — 

—*■. —. c. 26.—He fays—Tiberium olim nomine Augufli defideria 
lcgionum fruflrari folitum. 

X 

/ 

-—. —. c. 46.—He fays—that the Roman populace, diflatisfied with 
his having fent two ftriplings to quell the mutiny of the legions—viz— 
Germanicus and Drufus, obferved—ire ipfum, et opponere majeftatem 
imperatoriam debui/Te ceffuris, ubi firinci/iem longa cxjierientia, eun- 
demque feveritatis et munificentige fummum, vidillent. 

Thofe feven teftimonies on this point, we find in the fifft book only 
—in the next book—viz—ii. c. 42, we find an ambiguous exptefiion 
which appears to tend to the eftablifhment of the fame conclufion— 
viz—Ut verfa Casfarum fobole, imperium adeptus eft.—Now as he had 
before faid that Tiberius was by Auguftus made his colleague in the 
empire—and alfo in the tribunitial power a few years before the death 
of Auguftus, what can he have meant by this, but that he obtained 
fovereign power foon after the exile of Agrippa?—That is—760. 



N2 


K 


I 



Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years. 

Again—iii. 30,—he fays of Crifpus Salluftius—Igitur incolumi 
Maecenate proximus; mox praecipuus cui, fecreta impcratorum inni- 
terentur, et interficiendi Pofthumi Agrippae confcius, ablate provedta 
fpeciem magis in amicitia principis quam vim tenuit, idque et Maece- 
nati acciderat, &c. 

In the vi. book we meet with three references more to this joint 
power of Auguftus and Tiberius, the firft of which occurs c. 10, ir. 
It fays, as we have already obferved, that L. Pifo governed Syria 20 
years.—The fecond is of a piece with it.—It occurs chapter 39.—Fine 

anni—u. c. 788—T. 22—Poppseus Sabinus conceflit vita. [irin- 

cl/ium amicitia, confulatum ac triumphale decus adeptus: maximifque 
provinciis per quatuor ct viginti annos impofitus.—Now P. Sabinus 
was, we know, conful u. c. 762, feveral years after the deaths of 
Caius and Lucius, and the fecond after the banifhment of Agrippa.— 
Confequently, by—principum amicitia—can only be underflood that 
of Auguftus and Tiberius.—Now if, in that year, P. Sabinus was 
made conful by the favor of the princes , why fhould we not conclude, 
that Tiberius was, in that year colleague with Auguftus ?—And if P. 
Sabinus, had, in the year u. c. 788, prefided over the largeft provinces 
24 years, he muft have been made pra?fe& of Maefia, by the fame 
princes, 764.—This, at leaft, we learn from Tacitus himfelf, i. 80— 
that Tiberius in the firft or fecond year of his reign to the pra?fe£ture 
of Maefia added that of Achaia and Macedonia. 

The laft paftage relevant to our purpofe in this book, occurs in the 
Iaft chapter—viz—51—egregium vita famaque quoad privatus, vel in 
zmperiis fub Augufto fuit.—On this we have no remark to make perti¬ 
nent to our prefent purpofe.—But though we have nothing more to fay 

/ 

ns to the power of Tiberius under Auguftus, yet we think it not amifs 



1 



I 


37 

i r 

i t / » * 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years. 

* 

* 1 / 

to point out to the admirers of Tacitus the different manners in which 

I 

he fpeaks of the character of Tiberius in this place and in a pafiage of 
the i. book already quoted.—He here, we find, fays that Tiberius, 
as long as he lived under Auguftus, was fo very exemplary that every 
body noticed it.—Now if his character was, during all that time, 
egrcgioufly fair—why would Tacitus have us to believe that 

Auguftus, when, a few years before his death, he again demanded the 

\ 

tribunitial power for him of the Senate, think of making excufes for 
his defeats, and in fuch a manner too as tended only to expofe them? 
Quae velut excufando exprobrarct.—Did Auguftus, who as Suetonius, 
we have feen, fays, wrote that moft affectionate and laudatory letter 
to Tiberius, then, by the account of Paterculus, in Pannonia, (for 
what Paterculus fays, ii. m—viz—quantis prudentia ducis op- 
portunitatibus, furentes corum vires univerfas evafimus partibus?— 
correfponds exactly with the purport of Auguftus’ letter tranferibed 
by Suetonius,) fpeak thus of him, a year or two after, to the Senate— 
and, when he, as Tacitus fa\s, demanded a renewal of the tribunitial 
power for him ?—Impoffible !—And it is not only impoffible that 
Auguftus fhould, within five years of his death,, have mentioned 
Tiberius with any kind of obliquity—it is by the evidence of Dion, 
as we fhall come to fee prefently, almoft as incredible that Auguftus, 
was at that time, capable of going to the Senate. 

The fum of what Tacitus fays on this point, feems to be this—that 
Tiberius was colleague with Auguftus in fovereign power, and confort 
in the tribunitial—that Auguftus demanded a renewal of the tribuni¬ 
tial power for him, not as Dion fays, 1 . 56, p. 588, B., the year before 
he died—but a few years before he died.—And that Tiberius was, 
as prince, partly the caufe of the promotion of Sabinus to the con' 
fulfhip u. c. 762. 




I 


38 


Augustus ancl Tiberius colleagues jive years• 

Let us now then attend to what Dion fays on this point: 

4 

Dion fays, 1 . 55, p. 567, B., that Augudus was, a little after the 

, * J „ JZ 

banifhment of Archelaus, and a little before the Pannonian war, 
u. c. 759, rendered by age and by bodily infirmities, incapable of 
deciding on every point fubmitted to him, and that he, with the 
afliftance of co-aflelfors, tranfa&ed at home, as much bufinefs as he 
could.—And as for embaffies, as well thofe from the provinces as 
from kings , he deputed three confulars to hear them, and to return 
anfwers—excepting in fuch cafes, as it was necefiary for him and the 
Senate to join in the decifion.— y.xi ettz^xv kxi ru yzpx vxu ry m <rup.xros 

xvGeve/x Exa/xvsv, xte fxv) (*vvx<7^x1 irx<yi rots ^so/aevo/j t 1 xvra y^pn^xn^Eiv, rx fxsj 

aWx xvros fxirx tojv avvz^puv xxi c>ie<tkz^xto kxi zSiy.x'^ev, zv rx nrx}.xrix zm 

' > * * • 

Qivnxxros •nponx^Yi^Evos rxs oe ‘jrpzaCzixs, rxs te 7 rxpx ruv ctvpcxv, xxi txs vxpx 
vuy (oxa-iXsuv x$iymK[j»z\xs, Tpiaiv rxv vtcxtevy.oT'xv zTUTpz^zi), 'x y’ xvras ^xpts. 
ixxfov y.xi ^ixnasiv nvxv, xxi x 7 roY.pt<riv xvrois ^tSovxt, <n\vv rutv otx xvxyyjxiov %v 

mv te ( 3 uXqv y.xi ekeivov sirI'Sixx.pivsiv If now this report of Dion be true, 
and what Suetonius fays, iii. 16, be alfo true—that the Pannonian 
war laded three years, Augudus nrud have been, nearly three years 

before the end of the Pannonian war, fo infirm as not to have been 

/ * , ^ 

able to do bufinefs in public.—Paterculus, ii. no, feems to have 
pointed out one of the principal caufes of his malady—he there fays— 
quin tantus etiam hujus belli (viz—the Pannonian) metus fuit, ut 
dabiiem ilium, et firmatum tantorum bellorum experientia, Caefaris 
Augudi animum quateret atque terreret.—And no wonder if it alarm¬ 
ed him fo very much, as at was by the account of Suetonius, iii. 16, 
a fecond Punic—quod gravifiimum omnium externorum bellorum 
pod Punica, per xv. legiones, paremque auxiliorum copiam, triennio 
gefiit.—Another caufe which tended to render him dill weaker, 
happened in the courfe of the next year, 760, jud before the con- 


/ 





I 


39 


\ 



Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years . 

cluiion of the Pannonian war, when fays Dion, 1. 55, p. 569, 570, 
he found it abfolutely neceflary to difinherit and confine his only 
remaining grandfon Agrippa for his contumacity, not only to Livia, 
but to himfelf. 

/ \ ^ • 

Again—Dion fays, 1. 55, init., that Tiberius, u. c. 762, when 
Camerinus and Sabinus were confuls, after the winter was palled, and 

therefore nearly a half a year after the Pannonians were fubdued, 

/ 

went to Rome—that he was met by Auguflus, in the fuburbs, by him 
conduced to the Septa, and, as Suetonius fays, iii. 17, made to fit 
by his fide, between the two confuls—that he congratulated the 
people, performed the ufual ceremonies, and, by the confuls, gave 
Jiublic fjiorts , (a pretty fure proof that no public difafler had then 
taken place.) And that, at thofe very fjiorts , the knights demanded 
a repeal of the law relating to batchelors and to thofe married folks 
who had no children. On which occafion, Auguflus, as fome un*. 
'derfland Dion, notwithflanding he had, twice before, permitted the 
Senate to take cognizance of almofl every thing, notwithflanding he 
had declared his incapacity to attend them, notwithflanding he was, 
as Dion himfelf fays, opprefled with grief, on account of the un- 
dutiful behavior of Agrippa—and, notwithflanding he was, as Sueto¬ 
nius fays, ii. 84, unable to fpeak in public—notwithflanding all this, 
he is fuppofed to have delivered thofe two long, animated, and very 
eloquent harangues, which we read in Dion, to the married and un¬ 
married knights, aflembled in th e forum. 

But is it not jufl as likely that Tiberius himfelf, who, as Suetonius 
obferves, iii. 21, was then made cenfor, and, as he alio obferves, 
iii. 70, was thought to have fpoken better extempore than by preme¬ 
ditation, thus addrefied the knights on this occafion? If as Pater¬ 
culus, we have feen, fays M. Lepidus was, by him, jufl before, 


i 


40 


/ f 


•Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years. 

\ i 

placed over all the forces—if as Suetonius, we have feen, fays, the 
Parthian ambaftadors were, before the Pannonian war, commanded to 
attend him in Germany, when Germany was not yet tranquillized—• 
if, as he alfo fays, he was now made cenfor.—If as Tacitus, we have 
feen, favs, Sabinus was by him and Auguftus made conful, it feems 
not a little likely, as fome have furmifed, that he did harangue the 
knights on this occafion.—And if he did, the confequence of this 
triumph feems to have been as honorable to him, as the triumph 
itfelf. 

Again—Dion fays, 1 . 56, p. 582, A,, that a triumph was again 
decreed to Tiberius in 763, and feemingly for his exploits in Pan¬ 
noma and Dalmatia—but, fays he, C., this triumph was deferred on 
account of the defeat of Varus, which, adds he, happened at the 
fame time—viz—in the winter.—On the receipt of this news, fays 
Dion, p. 535, B., Auguftus was overcome by grief—and at F., that 
he would not, on that account, permit, as before, any J/iorts . 

Again—Dion fays, 1 . 56, p. 587, B. C., in c. 765, that Auguftus, 
when old, wrote a letter to the Senate recommending Germanicus to 
the fathers and them to Tiberius—this letter, fubjoins Dion, Auguftus 
did not read himfelf, for he was not able to do it, but Germanicus, 

\ v : * r ’ - 

as ufual. — And then he enjoined them, on account of the Celtic war, 
which, by his own report, began 763, and ended about this time, not 
to attend him, at the palace, with any more falutations, and not 
to be offended if he did not give them any more entertainments— 

US §£ E 7 TI yvipus UVy TOV TS Tsp(AXVlXOV TV) ( 3 nXv) y XXI TXVTW T u T i£epiu r 7 TXf>XXX 7 tQtro. 
xnyvu to ax xvros (« yxp otos r ysyuviaxzni) xXX 1 o Tepi/.xvixos r uimip 

fiiuQet xxi fxsrx thto >j tyhtxto %xp xvruv ziu tyi th YLzXtixh noXey.a Tspoipxa’ei fxnr 
oixot xvtov xnra^vrQxif (xyit xyxvxxTtiv si [ayikiti crvtrovToiy crfyivi. 



! 


I 






41 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

The next teftimony of Dion, which feems to be relevant to this 
point, occurs in the next page—viz—588, C. D., where he fays— 
44 and on account of his great age (which would not permit him, but 
44 very feldom, to attend the Senate) he demanded 20 annual counfel- 
44 lors—and a decree was palled—that whatever he, and Tiberius , and 
44 thofe counfellors, and the confuls for the time being, and the con- 
44 fuls eleft, and his fons—that is—his adojited fons, and whoever they 
44 Ihould call in to their alfiltance, Ihould ena£t, Ihould be valid, as if 
44 decreed by the whole Senate/’—K xi o-vpGuXns, m m yv>pus (v<p' xmp vfo 

ss to’ fixXvjTvipiov i rr\v)v anrxviuTxra t gvveQoitx) Eixoaiv etyigixs Yirnacuro. K xi 

TTpoo-E-^Yitpia-Qy, <7r<xv 0 ’ ogx xv xvtu [aetx te ra T iGeptu, xxi [aet exeivuv, tuv te 

XIEt V7TXTEV0VTUV, XXI TUV ES TdTO XI7C^E^Eiy[AEVUV f TUV TE EyyOVUV XVTX, TUV ITOlYtTUV 

chjAoyoTf, Tuv te xXXuv oertss xv exx^ote t rpocmxpxXxGv) ^esXevo/aevuv ^o^v), xvptx, us 

xx1 ttxtvi tv) yxpxcrix xpsTxvTx Eivxi .--The mention of Tiberius, in this 
decree of the Senate, and of him only by name, has appeared to 
fome rather remarkable. 

The laft palTage in this hillorian, which we conlider as a proof 
that Tiberius had, before the death of Augullus, imperial authority, 
and that it had been confirmed to him by a decree of the Senate, 
occurs in the next book—viz— 1 . 57, p. 602, D. 

Dion, in the beginning of that book, fays—Tiberius, immediately 
on the death of Auguflus, wrote, as Autocratoor, from Nola to the 
armies and to all the allies, not faying exprefily that he was Auto¬ 
cratoor, for this title he would not receive, though voted to him, 
with others, by the Senate.—T oihtos xv c>e tis uv us te tx rpxrordSx xxi 

ES TX e9vV) TiXVTXy US A VTOXpXTUp Ev9vS XTSO TY)S N uXys XWEfElXE . [AX \tyuv 
A VTOXpXTUp ElVXI. \^X<^It9eV y xp XVTU XXI TdTO [AETX TUV uXX'UV OVOfAXTUV, XX 

soe* xro .~By this Dion feems to acknowledge that Tiberius had, 

O 


\ 


42 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years. 

before the death of Auguftus, been, by a decree of the Senate , made 
emperor—and—that he, immediately after the death of Auguftus-— 
nQvt— iflued, as if he was emperor, notices to the armies, and to all 
the allied powers, from Nola.—Now when did the Senate confer on 
him this title ?—Or when did Tiberius refufe it ?—That the Senate 
had, feveral times before, voted him this title, and, that Tiberius did 
not refufe it, but on the contrary, feemed pleafed with it, we learn 
from feveral writers. Paterculus fays, ii. 104, that the foldiers, full 
of joy to fee him again after his retirement at Rhodes, exclaimed^— 
Videmus te, Imperator, &c?—Ego tecum, Imperator, in Armenia, 
&c. And, ii. 125, he himfelf fpeaks of him as being, in the begin¬ 
ning of his monarchy, an old imperator—Sed ha?c omnia veteris 
imperatoris maturitas, &c. Dion too fays himfelf, 1. 55, p. 552, B., 
that he was honored with this title the year before he was ii. conful— 
that is—u. c. 746.—And, 1 . 56, p. 582, A., that it was, with 
feveral other marks of honor,* given to Auguftus and Tiberius on 
the conqueft of the Dalmatians u. c. 763, and adds, that Auguftus 
did not, infirm as he was, refufe it. Eufebius fays, that he was, for 

his conqueft of Germany, entitled Autocratoor _ T&pus Kx«rxp xxrx- 

voXifxviiTxs Ttpfxxvbs xvToxfxruf •jrpoayyopsvOrt.—An. p. 62.-—And adds, im¬ 
mediately after, that he twice triumphed over the Pannonians.—Why 
then fhould Tiberius be faid to have refufed this honor though 
decreed to him by the Senate ?—After he had fo often accepted it 
from them? May we not fufpeft then that Dion muft have 
ufed this word in a different fenfe here from what he had before ?— 
And in that fenfe which, he acknowledges, 1 . 52, p. 493, E., was 
fometimes affixed to it ?—If he has, why did not Dion tell us fo, and 
when it happened ? 

•v.',' 

♦ - - 

* Two triumphal arches in Pannonia. 


43 




Augustus and Tiberius colleagues jive years. 

* The fum of thofe leveral teftimonies of Dion feems to be this— 

that Auguftus, in the year 759, began to be fo very infirm, as not to 

be able to attend to public bufinefs—that his infirmity ever after 

gradually increafed—that he, infirm as he was, u. c. 761, con- 

defcended to meet Tiberius, when he triumphed over the Pannonians, 

in the fuburbs, and thence attended him to the Septa—that he, in the 
^ - \ , x 
year 763, made Tiberius princeps fenatus—and, that he, at fome 

time, not mentioned, caufed Tiberius to be, by the Senate, inverted 

with power equal to that which he himfelf had. 

Having now difcovered that the evidence of Paterculus, Suetonius, 

/ f 

Tacitus, and Dion tends to prove the fame thing—viz—that Tibe¬ 
rius was, in the year 762 made equal with Auguftus in every thing, 
it feems to be unneceflary to adduce that of any other writer—and 
yet that of a later writer, may, after all that has been faid, be ad¬ 
duced with propriety.—It is an extraft from a Panegyric cap. 11, of 
which Pagius. Critic, A. C. n, n. iii, fpeaks highly—it is as follows 
Quoufque hoc Maximiniane, patiar, me quati, te quiefcere, mihi 
libertatem adimi, te ufurpare, tibi illicitam miflionem ? An quod 
Divo Augufto, poll feptuaginta aetatis, quinquaginta imperii, non 
licuit annos, tarn cito licuit tibi ? 

* , t 

By the accounts then of thofe five hiftorians, Tiberius appears to 
have reigned five years with Auguftus. And this, for the feveral 
reafons afligned at the outfet, is no inconfiderable point to be afcer- 
tained. For if Luke be underftood to have reckoned the 15th of 
his reign from the time when he had imperial power given him by the 
Senate over the provinces as well as the armies, he muft have meant 
that our Lord was baptized, by John, in the 10th of his monarchy— 

1 * ■ ' ' ■ .. 1 - • 1 , 

02 


44 




\ 

•Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years . 

in which year, we perceive, by the chronological fynopfis prefixed to 

i 

this work, our Lord entered on his 30th year. Confequently this re¬ 
port of Luke agrees with tliofe of Matthew, John, 'and the Talmud 
of Jerufalem, and with that concerning the expe&ation of the Jews 
that the Mefiiah fhould appear at the laft jubilee. 

As we have thought it neceflary to be very particular in our en¬ 
quiry concerning the length of this period in the reign of Tiberius, in 
order to juflify the accuracy of the report of Luke in his gofpel, it 
may not be amifs to add a word or two more concerning the impro¬ 
priety of fuppoting that he would have made a wrong report concern¬ 
ing the year when Tiberius began to reign. 

Before Luke wrote his hiflory of the life of Chrifl, many others, 
he fays, had done it. But as none of their hiflories were fo complete 
as they fhould have been—he, who, though of Antioch, had a 
perfect undemanding of all things from the beginning, undertook to 
write a more particular account of the birth and miniftry of our Lord. 
And this, it fhould be obferved, he did for the more ample inftru&ion 
of Theophilus, a man of rank of Antioch. 

Now as Luke prefaces his gofpel with this account, who would 

. * - * ♦ 

expeft to meet with any mis-ftatement in his w T ork ?—Efpecially with 

refpeft to the name of the governor of Syria when our Lord was 

• #• 

born?—Or—with refpedt to the year when Tiberius began to reign 
over Syria? 

He begins his gofpel, as Matthew alfo does, with faying that in 
the days of Herod the king of Judea, the annunciation took place.— 
He not only fays this, he alfo fays what the other three Evangelifts 
have omitted to fay—viz—that Cyrenius w r as, when our Lord was 
born, the governor of Syria.—He moreover favs that a taxation, or 

9 _u * 7 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years , 

rather enrollment, which he Teems to fay was called the firft, then 
took place every where.—Afterwards, he fays, that our Lord was 
baptiied by John, in the 15th year of Tiberius—and—that Pilate was, 
at that time, praefetf: of Judea. Befides the name of the pnefed of 
Judea, he alfo mentions thofe of the rulers of the feveral diftri&s 
contiguous to it, and that of the Jewifh high-prieft.—He fays ex- 
preffly that an interval of 29 years took place between the birth and 
baptifm—or—between the firfl taxation under Cyrenius (which, we 
have obferved, he fays happened in the reign of Herod the king of 
Judea,)—and—the 15th of Tiberius.—Now Herod, it appears, died 
in the year it. c. 750.—Confequently, reckoning, not from the birth 
of our Lord, which clearly preceded the death of Herod, but from 
the death of that prince—and—admitting that our Lord was full 30, 
when he was baptifed, he mull have have been baptifed u. c. 780— 
or—the 13th of the monarchy of Tiberius. But if our Lord was born 
two years before the death of Herod, and, was, when he entered on 
his miniftry, only 29 years complete, he mufl have been baptifed 

i 

the 10th of Tiberius, 

Now can it be fuppofed that Luke, who allures us that he was per- 
fe£Hy acquainted with all things from the beginning, and wrote for 
the purpofe of giving a fuller account of the birth and miniflry of 
our Lord than others had done, who was of Antioch, the capital of 
Syria, and publilhed the gofpel in that city, fhould have committed 
fo great an error with regard to the name of the governor of Syria, 
at our Lord’s birth, and the tax which then took place, and the 
duration of the reign of Tiberius over Syria ? Circumftances with 
which myriads in that province then alive were as well acquainted as 
himfelf. 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years. 

But if, by the 15th year of Tiberius, Luke meant the the 15th year 
of his government of Syria, and the 10th of his monarchy, and fays 
that Pontius Pilate was in that year the governor of Judea.—How is 
it that Jofephus in three places of his A.,—viz—xviii. 2, 5, 7, feems 
to deny it ? 

• * > *, 

C. 2, he fays, that Annius Rufus governed Judea when 

AugufluS died.—-A %xi rarov Arnos Pai $os, e<p' a ov> xxi nt.ivra. 

K acttrxp .—And that Tiberius fent Valerius Gratus to fucceed him, who 

■ 

governed Judea 11 years— sv^skx st *—which alone is enough to fatisfy 
us that Pilate could not have governed Judea in the 10th.—Again— 
c. 5, §. he fays that Pilate governed Judea 10 years— srwv—m 
and he has alfo been underflood to affirm, in the fame fentence, that 
Tiberius died, as Pilate was returning to Rome. Now, if that be his 
meaning, it proves that Pilate could not have been the governor till 
the middle of the 13th year — for 22|— 10=12!. — Laflly, c. 7, §. z ., 
he fays that Tiberius, in the courie of his reign, fent only two 
governors of Judea—viz—Gratus and Pilate. 

. I 

This is the account which Jofephus gives of the commencement 
and duration of the government of Pilate.—An account which has 
been always thought unobjectionable. 

But if Jofephus fhould be underflood as having faid that Pilate 
governed Judea till the death of Tiberius, how is it that he alfo fays, 
C. 5, §. / 3 ., that Vitellius, (who, Suetonius fays, was from the conful- 
Ihip—that is—in the 20th year of Tiberius, made pnefeCt of Syria,) 
on his arrival in that country—or—rather, before he w^ent up to 
Jerufalem, which he feems to have done at the enfuing paffover, and 
before he did any thing elfe in the eafl, fent— -eM^as— Marcelius to 
fupply the place of Pilate, whom he ordered to go to Rome, not to 



/ 


Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years . 

anfwer the charge of the Samaritans, but —vpos a xar»yopo«v i a^SLoi 
otlSa.I'xrrx rov xvTonpxropx .—If then Pilate was fent to Rome, before 
the paflover in the 21ft of Tiberius, and foon after the arrival of 
Vitellius in Syria, he may have been fent in the end of the 20th year, 
and if he had then governed Judea 10 years, he may, by the evidence 
of Jofephus, have been appointed in the 10th of Tiberius. Does it 
not then appear by this evidence of Jofephus that Pilate was fent to 
Rome before the paffover in the 21ft year of Tiberius ? That this 
mull have been his meaning will appear by conhdering what he fays, 
in the next fe&ion, where he fpeaks of Vitellius as being at Jerufalem 

, • 1 

at the paflover—he there fays, that Vitellius conferred feveral favors 
on the Jews—that he permitted them, once more, to keep the facred 
Hole—and that he then depofed Caiaphas, and lubflituted in his room 
Jonathan, whom he fays, c. 6, 7., Vitellius alfo depofed, when he 
went up again to Jerufalem to attend the paflover after Tiberius 
died.—Pilate then was undoubtedly fent to Rome, and Marcellus ap¬ 
pointed by Vitellius to fucceed him, before Caiaphas was depofed : 
and Tiberius died juft before Jonathan was depofed.—Again—Tibe¬ 
rius, we know, died 17th kal. April, (16th of March)—that is— 
before any of the days on which the paffover could fall. But Jofephus 
fays, A. xv. 11, 2 ., that Tiberius was Hill alive at the paflover next 
after the difmiflal of Pilate—(which paffover we are told by Mann, 

Bacon, Scaliger, and Fergufon happened 16th April,)—for he there 

\ 

fays that Vitellius wrote to Tiberius to know if he would grant per- 
miffon to the Jews to keep their facred Hole again, and that Tiberius 
fent an acknowledgement of his approbation— sypx^s wept 

T&tpiu K xifjxpiy xxKsivor Eirirps^s .—Jofephus adds, in the fame paflage, 
that the Hole was kept by the Romans— xp 1 ruv xpovw .— 

If then it was given up to the Jews at the paffover after Pilate left 


1 



I 


/ 


48 

I 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues five years . 

Judea, and in the days of Tiberius, Tiberius muft have been alive at 
the next paflbver, and therefore could not have died the 16th of March. 

Thofe three confiderations are enough to prove that Jofephus could 
not have meant to fay that Tiberius died as Pilate was on his paflage 
to Rome. But thofe are not the only conliderations—for Jofephus 
has, in the fequel of the xviii, mentioned feveral other things which 
Vitellius did afterwards in feveral places of the eafl before the death 
of Tiberius. 

He fays, in the next §.—viz—o—that Tiberius again wrote to 
Vitellius, after his return to Antioch, ordering him to enter into an 
alliance with Artabanus—and, again, §. s., that Artabanus was by 
Vitellius perfuaded to fend his fon Darius, an hoftage to Tiberius— 
that Herod, the Tetrarch, who attended at the interview, immediately 
reported the whole tranfa&ion to Tiberius—’and—that Vitellius was 
fo offended at it that he never forgave Herod.—And all this he feems 
to fay, §. happened, not in the 20th year of Tiberius, according to 
our reading, but in the 22d year, according to the reading of Epi- 
phanius.—But belides all this, which jofephus relates in the fifth 
chapter—he fays, in the next, 6. a., that at the fame time there was 
a difagreement between Herod, the Tetrarch, and Aretas—E* T ?r« 
S-XG-ict'^xaiv, &c. that Herod, by the treachery of fome foldiers, who 
had ferved under Philip, was defeated—that he complained of it to 

Tiberius—that Tiberius inflantly ordered Vitellius to affilt Herod_ 

that Vitellius, notwithflanding his inveterate hatred of Herod, not 
only marched to his alfiftance, but even went up to Jerufalem with 
him and his friends to worlhip, where, on the fourth day after their 
arrival, they heard that Tiberius was dead.—The day before, Vitellius 
had depofed Jonathan from the high-prieft-liood, and promoted his 
brother Theophilus to it. 


49 


9 z 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years. 

To all this may be added, that Jofephus fays, that Vitellius, when 
he ordered Pilate to go to Rome, appointed Marcellus to fucceed him, 
who feems to have governed Judea the remaining year or two of 
Tiberius—for he alfo fays, i, that almoft the firft thing Caius did 
was to fend Marullus.—And Clemens of Rome, in his Recogn. x. 55, 
appears to confirm this—for he there fays that Cornelius, the Cen¬ 
turion uras, by Casfar—that is—by Tiberius, fent to the praefeft of 
Caefarea—miffus a Caefare ad prsefidem Caefareas.—But if Marcellus 

' % v 

was praefeft of Judea a year or two under Tiberius, why does Jofephus 
fay afterwards in this fame book, 7. that Tiberius fent only Gratus 
and Pilate ?—Of this prefently. 

Now as Vitellius is faid to have been fent to Syria—ex confulatu— 
and as he is faid by Jofephus to have ordered Pilate to go to Rome 
before the following paffover, and of courfe long before he did any 
thing elfe in the eaft, why fhould we not conclude that Jofephus 
cannot have meant to fay that Tiberius died while Pilate was on his 
paflage ?—Let us attend to his own words. 

He fays —vpiv V) tyi Pw/wj r npoa-^iy uvroy, (pGxvsi T iCspios raffles’.— 

Now about the meaning of the firft part of this fentence there feems 
to be very little doubt—and if [mtxtxs here means dying, the latter 
part of it fhould clearly be rendered thus—-Tiberius anticipated by 
dying—without faying who or what Tiberius anticipated—and the 
whole fentence will run thus—before he got to Rome, Tiberius anti¬ 
cipated by dying, and, it may be laid—by dying voluntarily for 
means a voluntary tranfition from one Ration or fyflem of 
opinions to another—neither of which could then be faid with truth 
of Tiberius—and if either of them could—is it not a very unufual 
inode of fpeaking to fay of an emperor, expecting the arrival of his 

• / „ 1 

P 


/ 


50 


.... Y * . > . , r / • 

Augustus and Tiberius colleagues Jive years . 

accufed praefedt, that he foreftalled him by dying ?—What then if we 
fuppofe that a fmall error has crept into the text of Jofephus, and, 
that the whole pafiage is defcriptive of the proceedings of Pilate ?— 
Before he arrived at Rome he anticipated Tiberius by killing himfelf, 
which we are told by Eufebius, E. H. ii. 7, he did.—Has not Jofe¬ 
phus himfelf, by omitting to acquaint us with the refult of the accu- 
fation, apparently confirmed this reading ?—If he lived to reach Rome, 

and was acquitted, would he not have been permitted to return to his 

* . » . 

government ? And if he was found guilty, would he, as Tiberius was 

then alive, and had before, as Agrippa faid in his letter to Caius, 

L. ad C. p. 800, C. D., reprimanded him moft feverely, have been 

permitted to efcape with impunity ?—And if he was found guilty 

would not Jofephus, who feems to fay that he was partly accufed by 

the Jews, have taken care to tell us fo ?—Or—would not Agrippa 

have adverted to this recent inftance of the juftice of Tiberius and 

of the delinquency of Pilate, in his remonftrance to Caius > 




I 


51 


I 








CHAPTER IV. 


^Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius. 

4 ’ \ 

It has been aflerted by Tacitus, Suetonius and Dion that 
Tiberius, foon after the death of Auguftus, caufed Agrippa Pofthumus 

to be aflaffinated.—Let us enquire what reafon there to is think that 

« 

he may have done it. 

Paterculus, ii. 112, deferibes the exploits of the army under Tibe¬ 
rius in Pannoma, the year the war commenced u. c. 759—that part 
of the army which was under the command of Meffalinus, he fays, 
was victorious, but that under A. Csecina and S. Plautius was nearly 
vanquifhed by the improvidence of the generals.—Having faid this, 
he, quite unexpectedly, proceeds in the end of the fame chapter to 
give an account of the difgrace and death of Agrippa, the fon of Julia, 
and the adopted fon of Auguftus.—Hoc fere tempore, fays he, Agrippa 

1 

qui eodem die, quo Tiberius, adoptatus ab avo iuo naturali erat, et 
jam ante biennium qualis eftet, apparere coeperat, mira pravitate 
animi atque ingenii in preecipitia converfus, patris atque ejufdem avi 


1 


P 2 






#• 


/ 


53 

Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius . 

fui animum alienavit fibi.—Having thus informed Vinicius, that 
Agrippa had, the year the Pannonian war began, given proofs of 
his depravity, and that he was now become fo ungovernable as to 
alienate the affe&ions of his grandfather, he fubjoins—Moxque 
crefcentibus in dies vitiis, dignum furore fuo habuit exitum. 

Now if Agrippa did not ferve in Pannonia the year the war com¬ 
menced—or—u. c. 759, and by fome rafh aft, while ferving in that 
country, forfeit the regard of his grandfather, why fhould Paterculus 
have inferted an account of his flagrant mifeonduft in this place ?— 
Efpecially, as he had immediately before, mentioned the fevere Jofs 
which that part of the army, under A. Caecina and S. Plautius, had 
fuffered by the temerity ofthofe commanders—for to their temerity 
he imputes it—qui, multum a more imperatoris fui diferepantes, ante 
in hoflem inciderunt, quam per exploratores, ubi hoflis eflet cog- 
nofeerent.—•'I'his however we know that Dion fays, 1 . 55, p. 569, E., 
that Germanicus was, u. c. 760, fent into Pannonia, inftead of 
Agrippa, who had, by his vile conduft, fo offended his grandfather 
that he difinherited him, and banifhed him to Planafla, and caufed his 
effefts to be placed in the military cheff.—That Agrippa was always 
Very ferocious we are allured by the evidence of other hiftorians. 

Suetonius, ii. 65, having cbferved that he was adopted with Tibe¬ 
rius, immediately fubjoins—E quibus Agrippam brevi , ob ingenium 
fordidum ac ferox, abdicavit (that is, as Quinctilian explains it, in 
Declamat., difinherited him) fepofuitque Surrentum.—This feverity 
pf Auguftus was fo far from making him better, that it only ferved 
to make him worfe.—He was, fays Suetonius, in that chapter, fo far 
from being more traflable, that he was dafly more outrageous.— 
Agrippam nihilo traftabiliorem, imino in dies amentiorem.—This 
incorrigiblenels made Auguftus think it neceflary to tranfport him-r- 


N 


53 

Agrippa Postliumus not murdered by Tiberius . 

in infulam tranfportavit—and there to keep him confined under a 
guard—fepfitque infuper cuftodia militum.—And moreover, adds 
Suetonius, Auguftus, not fatisfied with all this coercion, prevailed on 
the Senate to make a decree to render his confinement there perpetual 
—Cavit etiam fenatus confulto, ut eodem loci in perpetuum con- 
tineretur—which by the accounts of all other hiflorians was done, 
for they fay, that he was, after the death of Auguftus, in the cuftody 
of a tribune.—Why then fhould Auguftus have fhewn fo much dif- 
pleafure to the only fon of his only daughter, whom he had but a 
few years before, adopted, if that fon was not, as all hiflorians fay, 
very depraved, vicious, and ungovernable ? 

4 ‘ i 

Both Suetonius and Tacitus, who acknowledge that fucli were his 
faults, fay that he was not made better even by this fevere punifh- 
nient.—Of whom the former fays, that Auguftus, at every mention 
of him and Julia, ufed to exclaim, in the bitternefs of his mind— 
o<pi\oy xyocfjios t ocyovos T cnroKscrOxt—'cLVld that lie ufed tO Call 

Julia and her two children, his—treis vomicas—and, his—tria car¬ 
cinomata.—Tacitus fays, that by far the greater part of the Roman 

i 

people had the fame opinion of him, and, that they confidered him 
as more enraged by his ignominious confinement—pars multo maxima 
imminentes dominos variis rumoribus differebant—trucem Agrippam, 
et ignominia accenfum, non oetate neque rerum experientia tantai 
moli parem. 

But though Tacitus fays, that by far the greateft part of the Roman 
people were, after the death of Auguftus, perfuaded that Agrippa 
was not in the leaft tamed by his long confinement, yet in the next 
chapter, i. 5, he thinks it not amifs to relate a rumour which, he fays, 
had prevailed before the death of Auguftus—Quippe rumor inceflerat 
.—viz—that he, attended only by Fabius Maximus, a few months 

' / - 


1 


54 , 


Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius, 

before he died, failed to Planafia, where Agrippa was confined, to fee 
him—that they were both much affe£led—that Maximus, on his re¬ 
turn, difcovered the whole affair to his wife Martia, fhe to Livia, and 
fhe again, inftead of concealing the difcovery from Auguflus, could 
not forbear from letting him know that fhe had been brought ac¬ 
quainted with the whole proceeding.—Soon after, fays Tacitus, Maxi¬ 
mus died, but whether naturally, or by fome contrivance he could 
not fay—this, however, he fays—that his widow, was, at his funeral, 
overheard to lament that fhe had been the caufe of his death.— 
Seemingly intimating by this that Auguflus was fo much under the 
control of Livia, that he, infirm as he was, contrived to take this trip 
to Planafia (which is faid to have been near the ifland of Corfica) by 
flealth—and that fhe, after all his contrivance to conceal it from her, 
got intelligence of it, and contrived to make the quietus, not only of 
his trufly confidant for having been at the interview, but of her own 
liufband too—at leaft, fome, fays Tacitus, fufpe£led it—et quidam 
fcelus uxoris fufpe&abant. 

/ 

Such is the ridiculous rumour which Tacitus has thought proper 
to infert in his annals.—A flory the credibility of which, he himfelf, 
we have juft feen, has, in the very chapter immediately preceding, 
completely deftroyed.—For, if by far the greater part of the Roman 
people, as he had, c. 4, faid, were perfuaded, but juft before the 
death of Auguflus, that Agrippa was flill as fierce as ever and en¬ 
raged by his ignominious confinement, how can it be fuppofed that 
Auguflus, who, not long before, could not, as Suetonius fays, bear 
to hear his name mentioned, was entirely ignorant of it ?—And if he 
knew that he was not at all foftened by his confinement, why fhould 
we believe that Auguflus was fo fond of feeing him as to undertake a 
clandeftine voyage acrofs the Tyrrhene fea for that purpofe?—And at 


\ 


55 

Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius . 

a time too, when, as Dion, we have feen, fays, he was unable to re¬ 
ceive the fenators, as ufual, at his own houfe ? Does not Paterculus, 
who lived at the time, fay enough, ii. 112, to lead us to fuppofe that 
he died not long after his banifliment—and—by his own ferocity?— 
What elfe can he have meant by— moxque dignum furore fuo habuit 
exitum?—And does he not feem to mean the fame thing, ii. 123, by 
leaving us to fuppofe that Auguftus, in his lad moments, took not 
the lead notice of him ?—He there fays—et ingravefcente in dies 
valetudine, cum fciret, quis volenti omnia pod fe falva remanere, 
accerfendus foret, feftinanter revocavit filium.—And what fon, if 
Agrippa was then alive, could he have meant?—Or rather—which 
of them attended his fummons ?—fcil.—Not Agrippa, but Tiberius— 
ille ad patrem patriae expe&ato revolavit maturius. 

Agrippa then, if alive in the lad illnefs of Augudus, was even then, 
by the evidence of Tacitus himfelf, thought by mod people to be 
very unfit to govern.—He moreover was, by the evidence too of 
Tacitus himfelf, in a fmall ifland under the cudody of a tribune .— 
He moreover, had been, and by the evidence too of Tacitus himfelf, 
ex-filiated, by a decree of the Senate at the requed of Augudus—why 
then fhould Tacitus have faid that the fird a£t of the new princely 
power of Tiberius was to order Podhumus Agrippa to be adadinated. 

_Primum facinus novi principals fuit Podhumi Agrippa? caedes.— 

What had Tiberius, who was fo incomparable a general and fo egre¬ 
gious a charafter, to fear from him, whom he fays, almod every 
body knew to be a raw, unexperienced, ferocious youth, and was then 
under a military guard in a remote idand?—But defpicable as Agrippa 
was generally known to be, he tells us further, ii. 39, that one of his 
flaves found intered enough to procure a fhip of burden, and refolu- 
tion enough to attempt to refcue him from the place of confinement, 
and that he failed in his attempt only by the heavinefs of his fhip. 


A 


66 


Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius. 

Suetonius agrees with Tacitus in faying that Agrippa was afiallinat- 
ted.—He fays, that he was aflaffinated by the contrivance of Li via, 
and, before the death of Auguftus was known.—He alfo fays, that 
Clemens, the zealous Have of Agrippa, contrived to afiemble a no 
defpicable body of men to revenge the death of his mailer before 
Tiberius had refolved on accepting the government—and—that this 
was one of the caufes of his hefitation. 

So abfurd are the attempts of tiiofe two hiltorians to make it appear 
that Tiberius ordered Agrippa to be alfaffinated.—But after all that 
they have faid on this point, it will not be difficult to prove, even by 
their own evidence, that it was the well-founded opinion of many 
that Agrippa died, as Paterculus feems to have faid, before Auguftus.. 
Dion fays, 1 . 57, p. 604, A., that it was the perfuafion of fome that 
Auguftus himfelf, before his death , ordered him to be aflaffinated— 

on 0 Avyufos ixvtov v'no tv v r iXivrvv cvmyjtrtacx.ro. 

» 1 

Tacitus, we find, even in the chapter in which he confidently ac- 
cufes Tiberius of having been the caufe of the death of Agrippa, ad¬ 
mits that fome thought that Auguftus himfelf was the caufe of it.—His 
words are—ceterum in nullius unquam fuorum necem duravit; neque 
mortem nepoti pro fecuritate privigni illatam, credibile erat.—Now 
why fhould he have faid this, unlefs there had been a report that 
Auguftus himfelf was the caufe of his death ?—-Indeed that Agrippa 
was dead before the death of Auguftus, Tacitus, we find, admits, 
iv. 57, where he fays, that Auguftus had thoughts of making 
Germanicus a monarch, but that he being entreated by Livia not 
to do fo, made Tiberius the head and placed Germanicus under him. 

The evidence of Suetonius on this point will be found to comport 
pretty much with that of Tacitus and Paterculus. 


/ 


67 


\ 


Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius . 

He, iii. 23, gives an account of the preamble of the will of AugufluS, 
Which, he fays, begun thus—Quoniam iiniftra fortuna Caiurtl et 
Lucium filios mihi eripuit, Tiberius, &c.—He here feems to regret 
the lofs of Caius and Lucius, but of Agrippa he fays not a Word.—* 
And, in the body of it he directs, that neither Julia nor her daughter 
Ihould be buried with him, but of Agrippa he here alfo fays not a 
word.—This furely is fomething like a proof that Agrippa Was then 
dead.—Now when does Suetonius fay Auguiius made his will?—viz— 
ii. 101, a year and four months before his own death, at which time 
he depoiited it, under feal, with two codicils, written partly by him- 
felf, and partly by his freedmen, Polybius and Hilarion, with the 
veftal virgins. 

Let us now hear what Dion lays of this matter. 

He fays, 1 . 56, p. 591, C., that Auguiius left four books containing 
accounts of the refources of the Hate, with directions for his fucceftor, 
&c.—He there enumerates the contents of tliofe books, and in the 
fourth, he fays, that he gave to Tiberius and the community— 
raf xoivco —-certain commands and directions, one of which was this—- 
that they ihould not make many free.—Dion fays, moreover, that to 
all the reft he fubjoined this advice—viz—that they Ihould commit 
the republic to the care of more than one, and, to men of /kill and 
experience, and by no means to let it depend on the caprice of any 
individual, left he Ihould be fond of tyranny.—By which furely it 
appears that Auguiius was, at that time, perfeClly uncontroled by 
Livia.—The name of Agrippr, Dion d )es not fay was mentioned in 
any of thofe volumes. 

By the evidence of thofe hill Brians then, as well as by that of 
Paterculus, it appears that Agrippa was, when Auguiius m ide his 


a 


\ 


/ 


58 

Agrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius. 

will, dead—that is—as Suetonius fays, ii. ioi, before the third of 
April u. c< 766.—Teftamentum, L. Planco, C. Silio, Cofs. iii.— 
Nonas Apriiis ante annum et quatuor menfes quam decederet, fa&um 
ab eo, &c.—a year and four months before Auguftus died.—Nay it 
appears by what Dion fays, 1 . 56, p. 587, B. C., that Agrippa was 
dead before the year u. c. 766—or rather, before the fecond of 

t * 

September u. c. 765—for in that page he fays, that Auguftus, when 
old, and before he accepted the management of the republic the laft 
time commended Germanicus to the Senate, and the Senate to Tiberius. 

We have in the preceding chapter proved that Auguftus was unable 
to undertake the voyage to Planafia—and, we have in this proved, 
that he appears not to have had any inclination to fee Agrippa, but it 
will not be amifs here to fay a few words of the danger of crofting 
the Tyrrhene fea, and Iikewife to fhew that he was otherwife engaged 

. 1,1 V 

during the few months fpecified by Tacitus. 

Horace, in an ode, 1 . iv. 15, addrefted to Auguftus himfelf, defcribes 
a voyage acrofs the Tyrrhene fea as remarkably hazardous.—Ne parva 
Ty rrhenum per rcquor vela darem.—How then can we fuppofe that 
Auguftus infirm, as he is reprefented by Dion to have been, and over¬ 
come by fear, as he is reprefented, both by him and Paterculus, to 
have been r would, a few months before he died, have ventured his 
aged frame acrofs that fea merely to condole with Agrippa ?—And if 
he was able and inclined to fee his exiled grandfon, and to go in a 
fmall bark acrofs the Tyrrhene fea for that purpofe, yet if he did it 
only a few months before he died, and by ftcalth , how will it appear 

to agree with what Suetonius and Dion fay ? 

* 

Suetonius fays, that the ceremony of concluding the luftrum re¬ 
quired his attendance at Rome, but a few months only before he 
died—that he then ordered Tiberius to conclude the folemnity—and 


/ 


I 


jigrippa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius . 

after that ordered him to Illyricum, and accompanied him fo far as 
Beneventum—and after that again removed from place to place on 
the coafl of Campania, and in the illands nearefl it, till he was fo ill 
that he could go no further.—Paterculus and Dion too agree with 
Suetonius in faying that Auguflus fpent the lad three or four months 
of his lite in going from place to place in Campania.—Now if 
Augullus was thus employed duriug the lad three or four months of 
his life, how can he be fuppofed to have had an opportunity of going, 
incog, to Planafia ? v 

Suetonius moreover appears to have flatly contradicted the preva¬ 
lence of fuch a rumour, for he fays, iii. 22, that it was, in his days, 
dill an unfettled point whether Auguflus himfelf had not left orders 
for the execution of Agrippa.—Quos codicillos, dubium fuit, Augus¬ 
tus ne moriens reliquiftet quo materiem tumultus poll fe fubduceret: 
An nomine Augufli Livia, et ea confcio Tiberio an ignaro didlaflet.— 
Now if it was, from the days of Auguflus to thofe of Suetonius, a 
matter of doubt whether Auguflus had, in his lafl moments, himfelf 
given the order for the execution of Agrippa, of courfe the report of 
his trip to Planafia mufl have been then, if known, quite difcredited. 

Suetonius then has, befides the having given us an account of the 
rooted antipathy of Auguflus to Julia and her children, and, of the 
total omiffion of the name of Agrippa in his will, faid enough to con¬ 
vince us that it was generally underflood that his refentment againfl 
his adopted grandfon continued to the very lafl. 

Dion too feems not only not to have been aware that fuch a report 
was ever current, but to have almofl as flatly contradicted the polfibi- 
lity that it could ever have been received as Suetonius—for, befides 
taking no notice of it, he not only fays, 1 . 56, p. 588, C., that 

Q 2 


\ 


I 


60 

*4 grip pa Posthumus not murdered by Tiberius. 

Auguftus was, in the confulfhip of Munatius and Silius—and there¬ 
fore the vear before he died, fo infirm as to be feldom able to attend 
the Senate—and—with Suetonius, that he fpent the laft three or four 
months of his life in making the tour of Campania.—He even fays, 

1 . 56, p. 589, D., that is was fufpe£ted by fome, but, fays Xiph. 
p. 97, E., by himfelf never, (and perhaps for the reafon aftigned 
96 E.) that Li via was the caufe of the death of her hufband—and, 
(as they fay) for fear left lie fliould recall —xxrxyxyn Agrippa from his 
Infular confinement to make him a monarch. But how could this be, it 
Tiberius was, by a decree of the Senate, made colleague with Auguftus 
in every thing five years before his death ? 

But does not the belief of this report by fome—viz—that Livia 
haftened the death of Auguftus, becaufe fhe was afraid that he would 
recall Agrippa to make him a monarch, feem to imply that fome 
thought that Auguftus would not be directed by Livia, in any matter, 
to the very laft.—Why then fhould we believe that he would have 
concealed his voyage from her? Are we not told, by Suetonius, that 
he would not permit Tiberius to return from Rhodes, even though 
importuned by Livia, without the confent of Caius, and then indeed, 
only on condition, that he fhould not interfere in ftate matters ?— 
And are we not told, by the fame writer, that he ordered Tiberius to 
conclude the laft luftrum that he made—that he then ordered him to 
Illyricum—and, that when he found his ftrength decaying, he re¬ 
called him to take his laft farewell of him. And are we not told by 
Dion, 1 . 58, p. 622, A., that Livia was, to the laft, remarkably fub- 
miftive to Auguftus —~Tc>ixnr, JJ.ZV v} Aiovix tysvsro. 

This ftory then of Auguftus having failed to Planafia, by ftealth, 
which is recorded by Tacitus, (and by him only) in the beginning of 
his annals, appears to be a defpicable fi&ion, and a fi&ion invented* 

itr • • 


Agrippa Postliumus not murdered by Tiberius. 

not improbably, by himfelf, to calumniate Livia, and to imprefs his 
reader, at the outlet, with a moft horrible idea of the manner in 
which Tiberius began his new princely career. 

'll' \ f v / 

As to his inlinuation that Livia poifoned Auguftus, what ftronger 
proof can be given of her innocence of that crime, than what Sue¬ 
tonius and Dion fay, of the tranquil manner in which he died ?— 
Suetonius fays, ii 99, that Auguftus was, at the time of his death 
(which, by the bye, he fays, happened not at Rome but at Nola) 
furrounded by his friends—that he afked them—if they thought that 
he had adted his part on the theatre of life well—and that he then 
faid— Aore xporov, xxi itx'/ns v^zis y.zrx yxpets xrvTT^a-xre.— SuetOllillS alfo 
adds—fortitus exitum facilem, et qualem femper optaverat. Dion 
fays, p. 589, 590, nearly the fame. 

On reconftdering the whole of what has been faid—the acknow¬ 
ledged hercenefs of Agrippa, his inexperience as a general, and the 
means which Auguftus took to reclaim him, and the precaution 
which Auguftus afterwards took to difinherit him, by ordering the 
Senate to pafs a decree for that purpofe, on the one hand—and, on 
the other, the moft excellent character of Tiberius at that time, 
(which is acknowledged even by Tacitus himfelf, and in two places—• 
vi ? —A. i. 12, and vi. 51,) and his tranfeendent abilities as a general, 
(which were acknowledged by Auguftus himfelf,)—when we conllder 
all this, we ftiall not have the leaft reafon to fuppofe (if Agrippa wa9 
then alive) that Auguftus would have appointed him a colleague with 
Tiberius in the fucceftion, much lefs, as Dion would perfuade us, a 
monarch—or—that Tiberius would have been fo jealous of his in- 

4 

ftuence as to think of cutting him off. 



I 


■ ' ' ■■■■ —— 1 -- 

\ , V 

CHAPTER V. 


Germanicus died naturally . 

Having now difcovered that there is, at leaft, fonie reafon to 

r 

think that Agrippa did not furvive AuguRus, as Paterculus feems to 
fay, and confequently that the reports of Suetonius, Tacitus, and 

Dion, as to the time and caufe of his death, appear to be wrong_ 

and—that their reports, as to the caufe of it, appear to be rather in* 
eonRRent—let us now proceed to inquire whether the reports of the 
fame three hiftorians, concerning the caufe of the death of Germanicus, 
appear to be lefs obje£tionable. 

Suetonius fays, iv. i, that Germanicus died, at Antioch, of a 
lingering diforder, not without a fufpkion that it was occafioned bv 

poifon—diutino morbo Antiochke obiit, non fine veneni fuf[iicione. _ 

He then proceeds to mention the fafts on which the fufpicion w*as 
grounded—-of which the principal one ferves to deftroy the credibility 
of the other two.—In the beginning of chapter 2, he fays, that 
Germanicus, as was thought , died by the contrivance of Tiberius, and 
by the means of Cn. P.110, whole obloquy and oftenlive behaviour 
was too much for his weak Rate.*—Obiit autem, ut opinio fuit, fraude 








I 


/ 


63 

Germanic us died naturally . 

t 

Tiberii, minifterio et opera C. Pifonis: qui fab idem tempus Syriae 
prsepofitus, nec diflimulans ofFendendum libi aut patrem aut filium, 

quaii plane ita necefle eftet, etiam <egrum Germanicum graviftimis 

. . . 1 1 

verborum ac rerum acerbitatibus, nullo adhibito modo, afFecit.—The 

fame thing he fays, iii. 52—Germanico ufque adeo obtre&avit, ut et 

praechra fafta ejus pro fupervacuis elevaret; et gloriofiffimas vi&orias, 

feu damnofas Reipublicae increparet. Quod vero Alexandriam propter 

immenfam et repentinam famem inconfulto fe adiidet, queftus eft in 

Senatu. Etiam caufFa mortis fuifte ei per Cn. Pifonem legatum Syriae 

creditur:—And again, vii. 2, V., he fays, that Pifo was the caufe of 

of his death, and that he was condemned for it, on the accufation of 

P. Vitellius. 

v 

Tacitus fays, A. ii. 69, that Germanicus himfelf fufpefled Pifo, 
who had retired from Syria to Coos, of having, before he left Syria, 
either fioifomd or bewitched him—that there however appeared ftronger 
marks of witchcraft than of poifon—fuch as human relics found about 
the houfe, charms, devotions, the name of Germanicus infcribed on 
plates of lead, half burnt afhes, and other devices ufed by witches.— 

And again, 73, he fays, that the body of Germanicus was expofed 
in, the forum, at Antioch, for the purpofe of difcovering whether 
there was any reafon to think that he died, not of poifon, but of 
witchcraft.—He fays nothing of the livid fpots, nor of the ftiil more 
remarkable circumftance that his heart remained unconfumed by the 
f ire that confumed his body, fafls mentioned by Suetonius. 

Jofephus fays, A. xviii. 2, 5., that Germanicus was poifoned by Pifo. 

Dion fays, 1 . 57, p. 615, D., that he died by the contrivance of 
Pifo and Plancina—and by witchcraft—the tokens of which were 
found in his own houfe. 





Germanicus died naturally. 


Thofe reports that the death of Germanicus had been accomplifhed 
either by witchcraft or by poifon appear to be not at all fatisfa&ory.-—= 

And as to Tiberius having been privy to his death, both Suetonius 

/ 

and Tacitus have faid enough to prove the futility of the inhnuation 
—Suetonius, in one place, iii. 56, and Tacitus, in feveral, A. iii. 56* 
and iv, 52, 53, 54.—-Tacitus, iii. 56, fays, that Tiberius, three or 
four years after the death of Germanicus demanded the tribunitial 
authority for Drufus, and obferved to the Senate, that he, as long as 
Germanicus lived, had debited from making the demand out of re- 
fpe£t to him.—Now why fhould Tiberius, if he had been confcious 
to himfelf that the people fufpe&ed him of having been the caufe of 
the death of Germanicus, have thought it at all necedary to mention 
him on this occafion?—This alone feems to be almoff enough to 
prove that he knew nothing of the matter. The remark, however, 
which, Tacitus fays, he fubjoined, proves more clearly that he was 
innocent of the charge.—For he fays, that he alfo obferved that his 
fon Drufus then had a wife and three children —why then fhould 
Tiberius, who, by the account of Paterculus and Dion, feems to have 
been much interefted in the welfare of Germanicus, be fufpe&ed of 
having been the caufe of his death?—And of having fent him to Syria 
to be murdered, and fhortly after Cn. Pifo to kill him in that 
country ?—Again—iv. 52, 53, 54, he fays enough to convince us 
that Agrippina muft, if fhe was fuch a termagant, as he reprefents 
her to have been, and if file was perfuaded that Tiberius had been 
the caufe of the death of her brother and hufband, have adted very 
inconfiflently, for he fays, c. 52, that fhe, in a rage, intruded on 
Tiberius, while facrificing to his father, and told him that it was of no 
ufe to do fo while he perfecuted his poflerity, alluding to the cafe of 
her coulin Claudia Pulchra.—And, in the next chapter, 53, he fays, 
that when Tiberius once, in her illnefs, paid her a vifit, fhe, in a fit 


65 


i 


Germanicus died naturally . 

/ 

of refentment, refufed to fpeak for fome time, and at lad, after having 
died tears profnfely, die complained to him—not of his having been 
the murderer of her firft hufband and brother, but that file wanted 
another hufband.—And what reply does Tacitus fay Tiberius made to 
her ?—Not the lead.—For fear of giving any offence he immediately 
left her.—This private anecdote of the family, fubjoins Tacitus, I 
found in the commentaries of her daughter.—Ladly, in the 54th 
chapter, Tacitus tells us a dill more unexpe&ed dory—viz—that 
Agrippina, notwithdanding the butcheries of her brother and hufband 

1 

—notwithdanding her ferocity and hauteur, was in the habit of 
frequenting the banquets of Tiberius, and that the once attended even 
though fhe had been informed, by the agents ofSejanus, that Tiberius 
intended to poifon her—but with, it feems, a predetermination, not 
to look at Tiberius, not to fpeak to him, not to touch any- thing at 
table.—Tiberius obferving her total referve, but whether he had been 
apprifed of the caufe of it, or not, Tacitus could not fay—to make 
himfelf fure, offered her, with his own hand, fome choice apples. — 
This ferved to convince her of the truth of what die had heard, and 
die therefore, ordered the fervants to take them all away.—Tiberius, 
fays Tacitus, faid not a word to her, but, turning to his mother, ob- 
ferved that no one could wonder if he never invited her more, as die 
fufpe&ed him of a defign to poifon her.—Suetonius fays, iii. 53, that 
he never invited her afterwards. 

V 

Now though thofe two hiflorians appear to have faid enough to 
render their own infatuation that Tiberius was the caufe of the death 
of Germanicus queflionable, yet let us not fpare any pains to examine 

whether there be any thing like a foundation for it. 

/ 

Germanicus, the younger, was the only fon of Drufus, fil'd: fur- 
named Germanicus, and of xAntonia, minor, who was the daughter of 

R ' 


66 


Germanicus died naturally, 

i 

M. Anthony and O&avia.—He was alfo the adopted Ton of his unde 
Tiberius, the only brother of Drufus. The attachment of Tibe¬ 
rius and Drufus to each other is fpoken of by hiftorians (a) as 
very remarkable. And that of Tiberius and Antonia (who is re- 
prefented by all hiftorians (b) to have been k moft excellent woman) 
is fpoken of, by many writers, as having been no lei's remarkable.— 
It was (lie who contrived, by the means of her freedman Pallas (c) 
and her maid Casnis, (d) to apprife Tiberius, then reiiding at Capreae, 
of the treachery of Sejanus. It was fhe too who difluaded her grand- 
fon Caius, by Germanicus, on his fucceeding Tiberius, (for Tiberius, 
it feems, after having murdered his father and uncle, appointed him 
his fucceflor) from liberating his and her friend Agrippa, whom Tibe¬ 
rius had, about fix months before his death, imprifoned for treacherous 
expreftions, as Jofephus would, A. xviii. 7, *. r, have us to believe, 
in favor of Caius. 

Germanicus had a lifter, named, as Tacitus fays, Livia, but as 
Suetonius and Dion fay, Livilla, who was married to her coufm 
Drufus, the fon of Tiberius, by Vipfania, the daughter of Vipfanius 
Agrippa, whom Tiberius was compelled to divorce in order to marry 
Julia u. c. 742.—The mutual fondnefs of Germanicus and Drufus 
was, as Tacitus obferves, A. ii. 43, as remarkable as that of Tiberius 
and Drufus—fed fratres egregie Concordes, et proximorum certami- 
nibus inconcuffi. 

Thus was Germanicus—the nephew and the adopted fon of Tibe¬ 
rius—and the brother by adoption, and the brother-in-law of his only 
fon Drufus.—By fo many ties was Germanicus conne&ed with the 
family of Tiberius. 

(a)—Livy. Epit. 140. (6)—V. Max. iv. 3. (c)—Jos. A. xviii. 7. r , 

(d)—Diou I. 66. p. 751. B. 


V 


67 


\ > 

Germanicus died naturally. 

Let us now proceed to enquire a little about his wife Agrippina. 

She was the daughter of Agrippa and Julia, and fhe became the 
daughter-in-law of Tiberius, by his marriage with her mother.—She 
was alfo the lifter of that Agrippa, the caufe of whofe death we have 
been juft confidering, and the half-lifter of Vipfania Agrippina the 
finft wife of Tiberius.—The haughtinefs of her fpirit is acknowledged 
by every writer, and by no one more than by Tacitus, who, in feveral 
places of his annals—viz—i. 33, ii. 72, 75, 78, iv. 52, 53, vi. 25, 
deferibes her as a fort of female fury—even after die death of her 
hufband—and, in the laft mentioned place, as being greedy of 
dominion—dominandi avida.—Dion, fays of her, 1 . 57, p. 105*— 
nv yap x.x)csivn typovri[A,otTuozs yvrn .—~Her hufband, Germanicus, was, fays 
Tacitus, fo well aware of her unbounded ambition, that he, while 
dying, gave her the following advice—Turn ad uxorem verfus, per 
memoriam fui, per communes liberos oravit, exueret ferociam y faevienti 
fortunae fubmitteret animum; neu regreflain urbem remulatione poten- 

—’ > . -0 

tiae validiores irritaret.—This advice, -obferves Tacitus, Germanicus 
gave his wife before all their friends.—And, fubjoins Tacitus, he gave 
other fecretly, by which, fays he, he was thought to have cautioned 
her again!! offending Tiberius—et alia fecreto, per quae credebatur 
oftendere metum ex Tiberio. 

This is the account which Tacitus gives of the laft words of Ger- 
manicus to his wife, by which it feems, Ihe could not have been 
much better than her brother Agrippa, whofe fiercenefs we have leen 
haftened his death.—But why does he fay, that Germanicus, in the 
prefence of his friends, advifed his wife, on her return to the city, not 
to emulate the power of the more powerful—and then again, in 

* Xiph. 

R 2 


l 


68 


/ 


V . / 

Germanicus died naturally . 

fecret, to have cautioned her againft offending Tiberius?—Did he 
fuppofe her to be fo high-minded as to think of vying with Tiberius 
for monarchy ?—If not, what reafon had he to be apprehenftve that 
flie might have any thing to fear from turn? Had he not, but juft 
before, depofited with his friends his dying requeft—viz—to report to 
his father and brother, that is, to Tiberius and Drufus, how miferably 
he had ended his life—referatis patri ac fratri, quibus acerbitatibus 
dilaceratus, quibus infidiis circumventus, miferrimam vitam peffima 
mcrte finierim ?—And does not this feem to imply that Germanicus 
had, to the laft, the greateft expectations from the known regard of 
his father and brother ? If not that he thought it more advifable to 
requeft his friends than his wife to report to Tiberius and Drufus ill 
what a miferable ftate he died ? 

Agrippina, we may well fuppofe, took care to follow the laft ad¬ 
vice of her dying hufband—at lead—as to any competition for power. 
Hiftorians, we find, agree in faying that file did not. Even Tacitus, 
we have feen, reprefents her as having been not afraid to intrude on 
Tiberius at any time, and any where, and to interrupt any bufinefs, 
however folemn, with indecent clamours. And both he and Sueto¬ 
nius even reprefent her as fo daring in her complaints as to have 
provoked the following folitary expoftulation from Tiberius—are you 
therefore hurt, my child, becaufe you cannot govern?—And that l'uch 
was her predominant paftion, to the very laft, Tacitus affirms, A. iv. 25. 

Paterculus fays, of her, ii. 130, and her eldeft fon Nero—Quod ex 

» • 

nuru, quod ex nepote, dolere, indignari, erubefeere coaCIus eft?—And 
all this Paterculus feems to fay of her before the death of Livia, for 
he immediately fubjoins—Cujus temporis sgritudinem auxit amifla 
mater eminentiffima, See. Tacitus himfelf appears to have confirmed 
what Paterculus fays of her—for he fays, A. v. 3, miflaeque in Agrip- 
pinam ac Neronem littene, quas pridem adlatas et cohibitas ab 


69 


Germanicus died naturally . 

Auguda credidit vulgu—hand enim multum pod mortem ejus recitatae 
font.—-And what does he fay was the fubdance of this epidle of 
Tiberius to the Senate?—Scil.—verba inerant qusefita afperitate : fed 
non arma, non rerum novarum dudium—amorcs juvenum et impudi- 
eitiam nepoti obje&abat—in nurum ne id quidem confingere aufus, 
a dr oy anti am oris et contumacem animum incufavit.—But was this 
really the fubdance of the charge ?—'Would Tiberius, who was not 
overfond of troubling himfelf about trifles, who was then, as Dion 
fays, t. 58, 623, not the autocrat of the Roman empire, but ofCaprere, 
who was then, as Juvenal fays, in a date of fecurity, have thought of 
bringing fo unimportant a charge againd the widow and the elded fon 
of Germanicus, and in the Senate, at a time when, as Tacitus himfelf 
fays, in the chapter before, one of the confuls ufed to divert the fathers 
with farcadic jokes on him?—What fays Suetonius of this matter?—• 
He, iv. 30, fays, that Caius himfelf ufed to inveigh againd all the 
fenators for having been the accufers of his mother and brothers, and 
to fay that the feverity of Tiberius was really excufable, confldering 
who were the accufers.—All the fenators then, and not Tiberius, 
were, by the confeflion of her own fon, the accufers of Agrippina.—• 
Pretty nearly the fame thing we And atteded by Philo, in his work 
againd Flaccus, p 748, F., where he fays, that Flaccus, the governor 
of Egypt, adminidered the affairs of his province five years under 
Tiberius, better than any former praefeft—that he,' foon after the 
death of Tiberius, was fo worn out with continued grief on that ac¬ 
count, that he was, at lad, when he heard of the murder of his grand- 
fon, a few months after, incapable of attending to the duties of his 
dation—and, perhaps, adds Philo, he was confcious of having been 
one of thofe who, by their accufations, were the caufe of the death of 
the mother of Caius .—sirs riov ovmtiQs[asvcov tv Yccm {/.yrspi Ku r d ov ypovov 
uys rots 01 it lots j s(p uis uwpsQ'o, ysyovws, koci oiu tyoGov u 7 \u<rsus tTrrtsXYiaysvos,-— 


I 


I 


\ 


70 

* " \ 

Germanicus died naturally. 

By this it appears that it was generally thought that many were her 
accusers—and—that there was more than one article of accufation.— 
And if Flaccus did not accufe her of endeavouring to prevail with him 
to fecond her treafonable deligns againd Tiberius, does not Philo feem 
to be a little inaccurate in faying that Flaccus was one of thofe who 
were the caufe of her death?—For how could Flaccus be faid to have 
been any way indrumental in her death, if he, in the 17th year of 
Tiberius, was fent to Egypt? Agrippina, fays Tacitus, vi. 25, died 
in the 19th year. And, if we may believe Suetonius, iv. 10, was 
banifhed to Pandataria before the death of Li via—et ea relegata in 
Liviae Augudae proaviae fuae contubernio manfit.—Confequently Flac¬ 
cus mud have been fent to Egypt two years before her death, and, at 
lead, three years after her banifhment. 

Have we not then reafon to fufpedl that fome other mud have 
been the offence of Agrippina befides that afhgned by Tacitus.—If die - 
was accufed of arrogance only, why were the fenators faid by Caius 
to have accufed her to Tiberius ?—Why was Flaccus faid to have 
joined others in her accufations ?—Why does Tacitus himfelf fay, 
v. 4, that the populace befet the fenatedioufe with her banners ?— 
Simul populus effigies Agrippinse ac Neronis gerens, circumfidit 
Curiam, &c.—That Sejanus complained in the Senate that the grief 
of Tiberius was defpifed—that the people were difaffefted—that new 
difcourfes—condones—were now heard and read—new decrees— 
confulta—of the fathers—that nothing remained but to take arms, 
and to place tliemfelves under thofe leaders whofe banners they bore. 
If her offence was no greater, why has Paterculus told us that Tibe¬ 
rius was forced to grieve, to be indignant, to be afhamed ? If it really 
was no greater, had he not feveral other incomparably greater caufes 
to grieve ?—And efpecially for the recent lofs of his mother? 


/ 


71 


\ 


\ 


Germanicus died naturally . 

Tacitus then appears to differ, in three points, from every other 
hiftorian, who has fpoken of the offence of Agrippina—viz—with re¬ 
gard to her accufers, the alleged offence, and the time when fhe was 
banifhed.—Indeed what he fays of the two former feems to be almoft 
contradictory of the latter.—For if Tiberius had fo long borne the 
termagant rants of Agrippina, with fo much eompofure, and had 
then retired from the management of date affairs in difguft, and, after 

the death of his mother, permitted Sejanus to tranfaCl all public 

/ 

bufinefs, and if he, as Tacitus himfelf fays, fpent his time in amenity 
—or, as Juvenal fays, in fecurity, would he have given himfelf the 
trouble to accufe her of arrogance only? As to the third particular— 
viz—the time when fhe was accufed—Tacitus difagrees with Pater¬ 
culus and Suetonius not a little.—Paterculus, we have feen, mentions 
the grief which Tiberius buffered on account of the mifdemeanor of 
Agrippina and her fon immediately before that of the diftrefs which 
he fuffered for the lofs of his mother. Suetonius, we have juft feen, 
fays, that fhe was banifhed before the death of Livia —and—that Caius, 
her youngeft fon, was, on the banifhment of his mother, placed un¬ 
der the care of Livia. Tacitus fays, that fhe was tried after the death 
§f Livia , who, he alfo fays, v. 3, was, by the populace of Rome, 
fuppofed to have prevailed on her fon to fupprefs this charge againft 
Agrippina and her fon Nero. 

But is it poffble that Tacitus could have erred concerning the order 
in which two fo remarkable events happened ? If he has, can what 
he fays of the perfuafion of the populace—viz—that the fame charge 
had long before been brought and given up on account of Livia, be 
true ?—And alfo, what he fays, of the interference of Livia in ftate 
matters be alfo true ?— If Agrippina was banifhed before the death of 
Livia, and Livia had before interfered in her behalf why did fhe not now ? 




N 





I 


Germanicus died naturally. 

\ ; i J [1. 

Let us now endeavour to bring ourfelves acquainted with the laft 
year or two of the life of her hufband, in order to enable ouifelves to 
judge of the caufe ot his death. 

He was, fays Jofephus, A. xviii. 3, s., fent, by the Senate , into the 
eaft, after the death of Antiochus, king of Comagene, to fettle a 
difpute between the higher and lower ranks of people in that country, 
of whom, the one party were for continuing the government, and the 
other for putting themfelves under the protection ot the Romans and 
there, lays Jofephus, he was murdered by the contrivance of Pilo, 
and his wife Plancina. This report of Jofephus is, we find, nearly 
attefted by Tacitus, A. ii. 42, who there fays, that Tiberius, in the 
year of Rome 770, after he had, in the name of Germanicus, dif- 
tributed among the populace of Rome 300 fefterces, and had defigned 
him for his colleague in the confulthip the year following, (which 
aCts of benevolence, fays Tacitus, the people did not think proceeded 
from any real regard to him,) either contrived, or took the advantage 
of contingencies, to fend him away from Rome, under a pretence of 
conferring honor on him.—Ceterum Tiberius, nomine Germanici, 
trecenos plebi feftertios viritim dedit, feque collegam confulatui ejus 
deflinavit, nec ideo fincerse caritatis fidem adfecutus, amoliri juvenem 
fjiecie honoris ftatuit, ftruxitque caufas aut forte oblatas arripuit.— 
By this then it appears that Tiberius, and not the Senate, fent Germa¬ 
nicus from Rome to fettle the affairs at Comagene. But, befides this, 
Tacitus, in the fequel of the fame chapter, mentions another caufe, 
not noticed by Jofephus—viz—that Syria and Judea, unable to pay 
their tributes any longer, prayed to have them lefiened.—This he fays 
in the 42d chapter, but in the 43d, he feems to affirm, that all the 
eaft was in a ftate of confufion.—Igitur haec, et de Armenia qu^ 
fupra (chapter 5) memoravi apud patres difieruit; nec pofte motum 


Germanicus died naturally . 


Orientem nifi Germanici fapientia componi, nam fuam aetatem ver- 
gere, Drufi nondum Tatis, adolevifle.—After having faid this, he Tub- 
joins what has a little too much the appearance of a contradiction to 
what he had before faid—viz—that Tiberius fent him, and, that he 
fent him with no good view.—Then, by a decree of the Senate, the 
tranfinarine provinces were aligned to Germanicus, with much larger 
powers, every where, than either thofe poffels who are appointed by 
lot or fent by the emperor. —By this it appears that the Senate , as 
Jofephus fays, fent Germanicus to the eaft.—Suetonius, iv. i, favs, 
that Germanicus was, when he was fent to compofe the differences in 
the eaft, expelled , and therefore, we prefume, he was expelled, not 
by the Senate, but by Tiberius.—Conful deinde iterum creatus, ac 
priufquam honorem iniret, ad componendum orientis ftatum expulfus , 

&c. &c.—But if all the eaft was then in a perturbed ftate—and he 

• » 

had larger powers, every where, how could he be faid to have been 
expelled ? Tacitus fays, chapter 5, that Tiberius was glad of the 

diflurbances in the eaft, becaufe, on that pretence, he could withdraw 

/ 

Germanicus, from his favorite legions, and expofe him to new deceit 
and dangers in new provinces. But, if it was only a contrivance of 
Tiberius to remove Germanicus from the command of the German 
legions, did not the Senate know it? Why then did they fo pompoufly 
fecond it ? And at a time when, if we may believe Suetonius, iii. 30, 
31, Tiberius had not attempted to control their deliberations?—But 
what fays Paterculus of this matter ?—He, before the death of Agrip¬ 
pina, obferves, to a conful, with how great honor Tiberius fent his 

Germanicus into the tranfmarine provinces.—Quanto cum honore 

# — 

Germanicum fuum in tranfmarinas mifit provinces ?— ii. 129. Now 
how can Paterculus be fuppofed to have recorded this of Tiberius, in 




Germanicus died naturally. 


the face of all the Senate, if they had fent him to the eaft r—And with 
greater power than any imperial praefeft ? That this report of Pater¬ 
culus is more credible than any of the foregoing appears likely from 
this conftderation—that not only Syria, but the eaft in general, was 
under the care of the emperor, as Tacitus himfelf has admitted, 
A. ii. 43.—For he there fays, notwithstanding he had immediately 
before afferted, that the Senate had given to Germanicus greater power 
than any imperial pnefe<ft, that Tiberius removed Creticus Silanus 
from the government of Syria, becaufe his daughter was engaged to 
Nero, the eldeft fon of Germanicus, and appointed C11. Pifo, becaufe 
lie was hoftile to his interefts. And if the primary object of his mif- 
fion was, as Tacitus fays, to fettle the affairs of Armenia, and to 
prevent the interference of the Parthians in the political arrangement 
of that country, we may well fuppofe that Tiberius, who, as Dion 
fays, 1 . 55, p. 554, D., was, when he went to Rhodes, made praefeft 
of Armenia, by Auguftus, would not permit the Senate to appoint a 
governor of that country. 

» t 

But why fhould Tiberius have fent Germanicus rather than his fon 
Drufus to fettle the affairs of the eaft ?—Tacitus informs us, A. ii 43, 
that Tiberius confided more in the wifdom of Germanicus than he 
could in that of his own fon Drufus. And what reafon does he aftign 
for this fuperior confidence ?—Becaufe, as he would have us to believe, 
Germanicus had more wifdom, and was the older of the two. Igitur 
haec, et de Armenia quae fupra memoravi, apud patres difteruit: nec 
pofle motum Orientem nifi Germanici fafiientia componi, nam fuam 
aetatem vergere, Draft nondum fatis adolevifte. But would Tiberius, 
who was, by all accounts, of all men the rnoft fagacious, and who 
knew as well as Tacitus, how very familiar his two foils were at the 
very time—fed fratres egregie Concordes, et proximorum certamini- 




\ i , •*# 

Germanicus died naturally, 

bus inconcuffi—A. ii. 43, have made, thus publicly, this invidious 
companion between them, at any time of his monarchy, efpecially 
in the year 770?—What reafon had he for faying that Germanicus 
was much older than Drufus—or—much wifer ?—Drufus was, in the 
year 770, as Tacitus himfelf allows, A. iii. 56, 31 years of age: and 
Germanicus was, in the fame year, 32.—Beiides, long before Ger¬ 
manicus arrived in Syria, he was lent to oppofe Maroboduus, and as 
Tacitus himfelf fays, A. ii. 62, while Germanicus was making the 
circuit of the provinces, he contrived to fubdue Maroboduus.— 
Dum ea aeftas Germanico plures per provincias tranfigitur, hand 
lcve dccus Drufus quadivit inliciens Germanos ad difeordias, utque 
fratto jam Maroboduo ufque in exitium infiiteretur.—And for this 
exploit, he was, fays Tacitus, A. iii. 11, honored for it by the Senate 
the very year in which Germanicus died, with an ovation. Atque in¬ 
terim Drufus rediens Illyrico, quanquam patres cenfuiflent, ob recep- 
tum Maroboduum, et res priore reflate geftas, ut, ovans iniret, prolato 
honore urbem intravit.—Confequently the reafons faid by Tacitus to 

♦ 1 

have been affigned by Tiberius for fending Germanicus to the eaft ap¬ 
pear to be without the leafl foundation. And therefore we may well 
doubt whether Tiberius really affigned fuch. Indeed if he Ipoke fo 
difparagingly of the experience and age of his own fon in the year 
77o—how can it be fuppofed that he forgot himfelf fo very much in 
the year 773, as to recommend him to the fame Senate, as duly 
prepared, for eight years pad:—that is—from the year 767, by his 
experience and military achievements, to be colleague in the tribuni- 
tial authority ? Neque enim propere, fed per otto annos capto cx- 
perimento, compreffis feditionibus, compofitis bellis, triumphalem et 
bis confulem, noti laboris participem fumi.—A. iii. 56. The fame 


S 2 



/ 


> 76 

Germanicus died naturally. 

enormous contradiction Tacitus has reprefented Tiberius as having 
made, on thofe two occafions, with regard to the age of his own fon. 
For in the year 770, Tacitus fays, he obferved to the Senate—Drufi 
aetatem nondum fatis adolevifte—and—in the year 775, he fays, Tibe¬ 
rius obferved to them—efle illi conjugem et tres liberos, eamque 
aetatem qua ipfe quondam a divo Auguflo ad capeflendum hoc munus 
vocatus fit, A. iii. 56.—Now Tiberius was, when he was firft honored 
with the tribunitial authority, as we have feen, 36.—If then Drufus 
was, in the year 775, in his 36th year, he muft have been in his 31 ft 
in the year 770.—How then can it be fuppofed that Tiberius then 
obferved of his age—nondum fatis adolevifte? 

\ 

1 

Thofe contradictions Tacitus has reprefented Tiberius himfelf to 

- 

have made publicly with regard to the age and military experience of 
Drufus, within a period of four or five years.—And a no lefs glaring 
contradiction, it Ihould be obferved, he appears to have reprefented 
Tiberius as having made to the general opinion of the populace of 
Rome, with regard to the qualifications of Germanicus as a general. 
In the year 767 he reprefents, A. i. 46, the populace of Rome as dif- 
fatisfied, becaufe Tiberius did not go himfelf to quell the mutinous 
legions in Germany and Illyricum—and becaufe he lent two ftriplings 
to fupply his place—neque duorum adolefcentium nondum adulta 
auCtoritate comprimi queat.—If then the populace of Rome thought 
that neither Germanicus nor Drufus was fit, in the year 767, to be 
fent to the mutinous legions, who can fuppofe that Germanicus could, 
in the year 770, have been fo much more fit to be fent to the eaft 
than any other perfon, and efpecially than Drufus, who was but a 
year younger? 

Germanicus then, we prefume, on the evidence of Tacitus, was, 

» 

in the year 770, fent by the Senate, with powers exceeding thofe of 


I 


77 

Germanicus died naturally . 

imperial pr&Te£ls, to fettle the affairs of the eaft, and efpecially of 
Armenia, then in diforder.—And Tiberius, he fays, in the next fen- 
tence, ii. 43, was fo jealous of his plenipotentiary fenatorial com- 
mifilon, that he thought it prudent to remove Creticus Silanus from 
his command of Syria, becaufe his daughter was likely to become the 
wife of the elded fon of Germanicus, and to fend Cn. Pifo to fucceed 
him, becaufe he was always hodile to Germanicus.—But can it have 
been true that Tiberius removed Creticus Silanus from the government 
of Syria merely becaufe it was likely that he would be induced to fide 
with Germanicus?—What fays Dion of this fame Creticus Silanus?— 
He fays, 1 . 59, p. 646, A., that Tiberius honored him much (and for 
his virtues, as Philo alfo fays, no doubt) that he took care never to 
oppofe him, and gave up to him in every thing —0 ^ yxp T i£epns ara is 

otvrov tn^av) ur* (jwte £xxX>jroy nTore xn7 xvth ^ly.xerxi eObXvktxi, xX\' skeivw 

ttxvtx <xv 9 is roc. roixvTx tyytlpla-dci .—Is it at all likely then that Tiberius 
would have recalled fuch a praefed from Syria, merely becaufe it was 
thought there would be, at fome remote time, a match between his 
daughter and Nero, the fon of Germanicus, then, perhaps, not more 
than ten or twelve years old? If, indeed, Tiberius recalled Silanus 
for this reafon only (and, admitting the truth of what he had faid 
before, A. ii. 5—viz—Tiberius was glad to hear of commotions in 
the ead, becaufe by that means he had a pretence for detaching Ger¬ 
manicus from his favorite legions—it is not altogether unlikely) how 

are we to underdand what he fays in the next chapter, 44 ?—There 

/ 

he fays, that Tiberius thought himfelf more fecure by trading the 
legions to each of his foils—feque tutiorem ‘rebatur, utroque filiorum 
legiones obtinente.—If then Tiberius thought himfelf more fecure be¬ 
caufe his fons commanded the armies, did he not fee that his fecurity 
was likely to be increafed by retaining his friend Silanus in his 
government ? 


/ 


/ 


78 

I* 

Germanicus died naturally . 

, • 

^ J N 

But if the affairs of the eaft were in general in fuch a ftate of anarchy 
in the year 769—for fo Tacitus himfelf fays, A. ii. 5—and—if Tibe¬ 
rius was glad of the opportunity to fend Germanicus far away—and— 
if the Senate were fo ready to fecond his wifhes, may we not expect 
that he, in that year, went to Armenia?—Let us make it our bufinefs 
to inquire. 

In the year 770, fays Tacitus, A. ii. 51, he was flill at Rome, 
electioneering with Drufus, and did not leave Rome till after Drufus 
had arrived in Dalmatia.—Germanicus then began his journey.—Firft 
he went to Illyricum, and from thence to Dalmatia to fee Drufus, 
and from thence again along the coalt of the Adriatic to Nicopolis, in 
El, irus , where he entered on his fecond confulfhip. From Nicopolis 
he removed to Athens, where he was received with every mark of 
adulation. Thence he went to Euboea, and fo on, not to Alia, but 
to Byzantium. Then he entered the Euxine fea, the coafts of which 
he explored, and then returned along the coaft of Alia to Rhodes, 
where he met Cn. Pifo, hafrening to Syria. Thus it feems that Pifo 
was fent, not before Germanicus, but after him, and, it may be added, 
a long while after him, notwithflanding the affairs of the eaft had 
been in a confufed ftate, as Tacitus fays, A. ii. 5, two years before. 
As then Germanicus delayed fo long to execute the primary obje£l of 
his million, why fhould we not fufpeCl that Tiberius found it necef- 
fary, to fend, in the mean time, Pifo into Syria'—Thither, however, 
he fent him, and there Pifo arrived before Germanicus, notwithftand- 
ing Germanicus had been fent, by the Senate, with more ample powers 
than any imperial pra?fe£t, to fettle the affairs of the caft, which had 
now been in confufion about two years. 

And how did Germanicus behave when he arrived in Sviia ? 

■ -• 


Germanicus died naturally. 

k r. ‘ 

He firft placed a royal diadem on the head of Zeno, as king of 
Armenia—then he reduced Cappadocia into the form of a province, 
and appointed a prsefeCt for the firft time over Comagene.—Thus 
every thing being fettled, he ordered Pifo, or his fon, to march, with 
a part of the legions, into Armenia.—This Pifo refufed to do.—This 
difobedience of orders caufed a mifunderftanding between them, which, 
by the interpolition of friends, feems to have been accommodated.— 

* . ■ 'f i ** 

After this Germanicus vifited the king of the Nabathseans, and per¬ 
mitted him to fet a heavy crown of gold on his own head and on that 
of Agrippina.—This offended Pifo and drew fome offenlive animad- 
veriions from him. 

The year following Germanicus, in the time of immenfe and un¬ 
expected fcarcity, under a pretence of procuring a fupply of provilions 
for the people of Syria, without the permifiion of Tiberius, entered 
Egypt.—Of this ftep, fays Suetonius, iii. 52, and Tacitus, ii. 59, Tibe¬ 
rius complained very much.—For, fays Tacitus, Auguftus ordered 
that no fenator nor knight fhould enter Egypt without leave from the 
prince.—In the mean time Pifo reverfed whatever orders he had left 
for the legions or for the cities.—This ftep revived their mutual 
criminations, in which their wives bore a very confpicuous part.— 
Soon after this Germanicus, on his return to Antioch, fell fick, and, 
in his laft moments, lurrounded by his friends, he, as we have feen, 
gave his wife fome prudent advice, which feems to imply that much 

of the oppolition which he had experienced, had been occafioned by 

\ 

her hauteur—and—moreover, faid fomething to her afterwards in 
private.—Having finifhed his exhortation to his wife, and requeued 
his friends to report to his father and brother, what he had faid, he 
expired. 





80 


Germanicus died naturally. 

Pifo was foon after accufed of having poifoned him—and condem¬ 
ned for it by the Senate, contrary to the inclination of Tiberius, who 
was therefore fuppofed to have given private orders to Pifo to cut 
him off. 

Let us inquire how far Tiberius is likely to have given this order. 

That Tiberius was conlidered by Agrippina as any way privy to the 

I ' 

' death of her hufband is rendered not a little improbable by what we 
have already feen Suetonius and Tacitus fay of her fubfequent beha¬ 
vior to him at Rome—her intrulions—her repeated attendance at his 
entertainments—and her complaint to him of her want of another 
hufband.—But this is not the only proof of the innocence of Tiberius 
in this matter.—The conduct of Antonia, the mother of Germanicus, 
if examined, will afford a proof equally ftrong that fhe alfo conlidered 
Tiberius as perfectly innocent of the death of her fon. 

Antonia, we have feen, was the widow of Drufus, the mother of 

Germanicus, and the firfl coufin of Julia, the mother of Agrippina.— 

Confequently fhe mufl be fuppofed to have known all the circum- 

flances of her fon’s death.—How then do hiftorians fay fhe behaved 

* 

after the lofs of her only fon?—Tacitus fays, iii. 3, that file did not 
attend his funeral, and why fhe did not, he fays, he could never dif- 
cover, by any written document whatever—poffibly, fays he, fhe may 
have been unwell—or, the excefs of grief may have prevented her— 
to thofe two conjectures he adds a third—which, he takes care to let 
us know, he thinks more likely to have been the real caufe of her 
abfence—viz—that Hie was kept from attending the proceflion by 
Livia and Tiberius.—And does not this look like an infinuation that 
Livia too was a party concerned in the death of her grand-fon ?—But 
if Antonia was thus deterred from attending the funeral proceflion of 


t 


81 

Germanicus died naturally . 

her grand-fon by the contrivance of Tiberius and his mother—how is 
it that fhe, a few years after, as Jofephus fays, A. xviii. 7, r., apprifed 
Tiberius, by her freed-man Pallas and her maid Crenis, that Sejanus 
was ploting to overthrow the government ?—And how does Tacitus 
fay Sejanus contrived to do it—fcil.—by promifing to marry Li via, the 
widow of his friend Drufus, the fon of Tiberius, and the daughter of 
the fame Antonia.—And would Antonia have voluntarily done all this 

, /; ' V 

for Tiberius, if fhe had fufpe&ed that he had been the murderer of her 
only fon ?—And how is it that fhe, as Jofephus alfo fays, A. xviii. 7, 1., 

1 

defired Caius, who was going to liberate Agrippa the day after Tibe¬ 
rius died, not to do it fo foon, becaufe it w T ould appear difrefpedtful ? 

Another thing that looks like a plain refutation of the infinuation, 

is mentioned by Tacitus himfelf, and, among the events of the fame 

\ 

year. A. ii. 88, he relates how Adgandeflrius, the prince of theCatti, 
offered to poifon Arminius, and what Tiberius faid in the Senate on 
that occafion. He fays, that Tiberius reje£led the offer with difdain,* 
or rather with indignation—and—that he acquired the fame of an 
ancient Roman for his abhorrence of the deed.—Qua gloria aequabat 
fe imperatoribus prifeis. This noble refufal of the offer of Adgan- 
deftrius, it lliould be remembered, happened in the courfe of the year 
in which Germanicus died, and probably but a very few months after 
that event—and is faid, by Tacitus, to have been recorded by the 
writers and fenators who lived at the time. Would then Tiberius 
have acquired fo much credit for exprefling himfelf fo indignantly on 
this occafion before the expiration of that year, if he had been thought 
to have been the caufe of the death of his adopted fon and nephew, 
and the hufband of his daughter in-law Agrippina?—This tedimony 
of Tacitus is not a little remaikable, if not alone fufheient to prove 
that Tiberius was considered by every body as innocent of the death 
of Germanicus. 


T 


£2 


Germanicus died naturally . 

But Seneca, in three of his works*—viz—Confol. ad Marc., Confol. 
ad Polyb., and Nat. quceft., has afforded us ftill ftronger proof that 
Germanicus died a natural death—for—in the firft mentioned work, 
he himfelf fays, c. 16—that Tiberius Caefar et quern genuerat, et quem 
adoptaverat amifit:—in the fecond, he, c. 35, introduces Claudius as 
faying—Amifi Germanicum fratrem: quem quomodo amaverim, in- 
telliget profe&o, quifquis cogitat quomodo fuas fratres pii fratres 
amant.—And in the laft, he, 1 . i. c. i, fays—Vidimus circa divi 
Augufti exceffum iimile prodigium: vidimus cum de Sejano a£tum 
eft : nec Germamci mors fine denunciatione tali fuit.—Now if Germa- 
nicus had been poifoned, would both Claudius and Seneca have fpoken 
thus of him ?—And, if Tiberius had caufed him to be poifoned, would 
Seneca, have propofed to Marcia, under extreme grief for the lofs of 
her fon, the example which Tiberius exhibited of fortitude for the lofs 

* y > *1 

of Germanicus and Drufus ? 

1 __ 

I 


1 


83 


CHAPTER VI. 


V >■ 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

rip 

JL HE character of Tiberius is, we know, reprefented, by all 
liiftorians, as having been very excellent till he was 56 years old— 
that is—till the death of Auguftus. Even Tacitus admits, and, in two 
places, i. 12, vi. 51, that it was during fo many years, fo very ex¬ 
cellent. He alfo fays, i. 54, that his manners were more dignified 
than even thofe of Auguftus, who, in compliment to Maecenas, then 
fond of Bathyllus, a pofture mafter, and tq pleafe the vulgar, ufed to 
be prefent at the loweft diverfions—Indulfeiat ei ludicro Auguftus, 
dum Mcecenati obtemperat efFufo in amorem Bathylli: neque ipfe 
abhorrebat talibus ftudiis, et civile rebatur mifeeri voluptatibus vulgi.* 

* Tacitus, who here seems to condemn Augustus for being present at such 
low sports, and to commend Tiberius for not following his example, says, 
i. 76, of Tiberius, on a similar occasion—cur abstinuerit spectaculo ipse, 
varie trahebant: alii tsedio ccetus, quidam tristitia ingenii, et metu compara- 

tionis, quia Augustus comiter interfuit. 

% •> 

Suetonius, iii. 72, Castrensibus ludis non interfuit solum, sed, Ac.' 

47, Et iis, qua? ab aliquo ederentur, rarissime interfuit. 

Dion, p. 609, B., arunyi^xrx yxp nn rxs Qixs x^vt-x. 

X-2 


/ 










/ 


I 


I 


t 


84 

\ 1 1 . \ 

i 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

\ 

But, continues be, the manners of Tiberius were different—alia 
Tiberio morum via.* Tacitus not only fays this, - but he adds, that 

I 1 

Tiberius had it in contemplation to check that diffjlutenefs of man¬ 
ners, to which the generality of the people were, in confequence of 
the long connivance of Auguftus, fo much habituated—but that fuch 
was the diliolute ftate of them, that he dared not, as yet, attempt to 
do it—fed populum per tot annos moll iter habitum, nondum audebat 
ad duriora vertere—which, furely, feems to imply that he did, after¬ 
wards, attempt to do it. Indeed, we find, that both Tacitus himfelff 
and Suetonius tooj fay expreffly that he, more than once, attempted 
to corre£t the manners of the people—though as Suetonius fays, iii. 59, 
not aKvays without many inve&ives for his good intentions from mife- 
rable verfifyers, who dared to reproach him for his having been an 
exile at Rhodes—for his abftinence from wine—for his morofenefs 

1 

towards his mother—and, flrange to fay—for his cruelty and blood- 
thirflinefs.’ And how does Suetonius fay this blood-thirfly tyrant 

behaved on thofe occalions ?—fell.—he calmly faid, let the bad hate 

/ 

me, provided the good like me—Oderint dum probent.§ 


* In the 74th chapter of this same hook Tacitus says—inevitabile crimen, 
cum ex moribus Principis foedissima quzeque deligeret accusator, objeclarcl- 
que reo, 

+ A. ii. 34, 48, S5.—iv. 14, 62. 

jj I i 

£ iii. 33, 35, 59. 

§ Suetonius, iii. 28, Sed adversus convitia malosque rumores et famosa dc 
sc ac suis carmina firmus ac patiens subinde jactabat.—In civitate libera liu- 
guam menlemque liberas esse dcberc. 

1 ' < 

Tac. A. ii. 50—In se jacta nolle ad cognitionem vocari. 

A. iii. 10—Splernendis rumoribus validum,—Dion, p. 637, C. 
vi. 38—Coutemptor suae infamise. 


V 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

Bat notwithstanding Tacitus has, in fevcral places above noticed, 
fpoken fo highly of the condud of Tiberius till the death of Auguftus, 
yet he fays, A. 72, 73, 74, that he was a very bad prince, and, ieein- 
ingly, fo early as the beginning of the fecond year of his reign, though 
he had then been, as he fays, in the beginning of the firfl mentioned 
chapter, requeued by the people to accept the title of father of his 
country , feveral times. In the end of that fame chapter he fays, that 
he was, as Suetonius, we have feen, alfo fays, fo notorioufly cruel , 
proud, and quarrelfome with his mother, that certain unknown faty- 
rifbs attacked him for thofe bad qualities moft feverely, and, as Taci¬ 
tus fays, exafperated him.*—Hunc quoque afperavere carmina, in- 
certis auctoribus vulgata, i nfavitiam fupcrbiamque ejus, et difeordein 
cum matre animum.—C. 73, he proceeds to let us know how furrep- 
titioufly he contrived to introduce a moft grievous but namelefs peft 
into Rome, how this namelefs peft, was, by feme unknown means 
then expelled, and how it then again, after fome time, found means 
to re-enter, and, at laft, blazed forth, and before the end of his reign, 
infcdled every thing.—Maud pigebit referre in Falanio et Rubrio, 
modicis equitibus romanis praetentata crimina: ut :quibus initiis, 
quanta arte Tiberii, graviftimum exitium irrepferit, dein reprefTum 
fit, poftremo arferit, cunftaque corripuerit nofeatur.—C. 74, he in¬ 
forms us how Romanus Idifpo, a poor, unknown, reftlefs wretch, 
be^an foon after the affair of Falanius and Rubrius—nec multo poll: 

_to follow a courfe of life which the miferies of the times, and the 

audacity of men, afterwards rendered famous, and, that this wretch 
began it by finding means to become an agent to the cruelty of the 
prince—ftevithc principis adrepit—that is—by obtaining his permiffton 
to fend him private accounts, not of any one, but of any one of 

* Does not this appear, to have been contradicted by Tacitus himself, by 
vvliat he says in the three places referred to hi the last note? 





When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

eminence,* to the great danger of all that clafs. T hereby rendering 
liimfelf odious to all, in order to pleafe one, and fetting an example 
to the reft of his fort, how to enrich themfelves by feeking the 
deftru&ion of the great. This bafe wretch, fubjoins Tacitus, and all 
his fort, at hft 7 met the fame fate. 

This is the account which Tacitus gives of Tiberius in thofe three 
chapters above-mentioned. An account which clearly feems to imply 
that his cruelty, £cc. muft have been, even in the very beginning of 
the fecond year of his reign, notorious, fince thofe fatyrifts then at¬ 
tacked him for It, and Tlifpo, low as he was, thought of ingratiating 
himfelfwith him, by becoming the agent of his cruelty. 

But can Tacitus here have really meant that Tiberius was, even in 
the fecond year of his reign, fo notorioufly cruel, and at variance 
with his mother, and was then the introducer of this moft grievous 
peft, and the encourager of this poor wretch to the deftru&ion of the 
moft eminent ?—Or—fhould he be only underftood to fpeak by way 
of anticipation ?—Whether he can really have meant to fay that all 
this happened in the beginning of the fecond year of his reign, or, 
cannot—we hope, as we go on, to be able to qualify ourfelves to judge. 

Dion, in feveral places of his, 1 . 57, bears pretty nearly the fame 
teftimony to tile charafter of Tiberius, as Tacitus, we have feen, 
'does, not only till the beginning of the fecond year of his reign, but 
till the death of Germanicus—that is—till the fixth year of his reign, 
and the 61ft of his age, he fays nothing, during that period, of the 
cruelty of Tiberius—of his introducing this moft grievous peft—or— 

* This worthless fellow, not long after, that is, as we suppose, not long 
after Tiberius had surreptitiously introduced the most grievous evil, accused 
Granius Marcellus, the praetor of Bythynia, of having spoken disrespectfully 
of his prince. An inevitable crime! adds Tacitus, especially when, according 
to the manners of the prince, he objected to him, the most filthy things. 


I 


£7 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

of the accufations of Hifpo—on the contrary, he, in feveral places, 
fpeaks mod highly of his conduct, and therefore, it feems likely that 
Tacitus only mentions thofe events by way of anticipation.—p. 603, 
D., he fays, that he was, by the Senate, chofen emperor, for his 
greater excellence in virtue than even any of their own body— 
us kxtx xptrw o-Quv npovniuv .— p. 6io, C., he fays, that he, for fome 
time, lived very rationally— aotppuviTotrx —and that he would not permit 
others to live diflolutely, but punifhed many for living fo.*—p. 614, 
D., he fays, that he, as long as he pra£tifed other virtues, was re¬ 
markably careful to prote& the property of others,f and that he 
would not accept a legacy from any one who had relatives. 
p. 715, D .y he fays, that he was not, till after the death of Germa- 
nicusi at all changed—that is—till after the 15th year of his reign 
and the 61ft of his age—or—u. c. 773, when he was, of a fudden, 
totally changed — T&pios stte; to cftSpevov H'XST ss 93 ray TO TVvxrriov 

Tun irpocrQev ttpyxijx[/.£vuv atiru f flroXA&'v outuv y.xi kcc\uv 7rfp^r^~where, it is 

obfervable, he intimates that Germanicus was his competitor, and 

* • 

attributes this fudden and total change to the v/ant of one.—Laftly, 
iii the next, p. 616, D., he fays, that this total and fudden change 
excited (as it well might in any one, and efpecially in a man of the 

* Tacitus, A. ii. 48—Ceterum nt honestara innocentium paupertatem leva- 
rit; ita prodigos & ob flagitia egentes Vibidium Varonera, Ilariuiu Nepolera, 
Appium Appianum, Cornelium Sullaiu, Q. Viteliium movit senato, aut sponte 
cedere passus est. 

4 A most remarkable instance Dion mentions, 1. 57, p. 609, C., being once 
at a public exhibition, when the people woulddiave an excellent dancer made 
free, he would not consent till his master had consented to part with him 
and to receive the full value of him.—Tacitus, A. iii. 18 , satis firmus, ut saepe 
memoravi, adversum pecuniam. 

/ 

+ Tacitus, A. ii. 48—Neque hereditatem cujusquara adiit, nisi cum amicitia 
meruisset : ignotos et aiiis infensos, eoque principem nuncupaates, procul 
arcebat. \ 


v\ 



/ 


' „ V. N t 

\ 

1 

V . / / * V '*« 

88 

✓ \ / 

# '• -•* 

When Tiberim began to be a bad Prince . 

moft virtuous habits, and more than threefcore years old,) univerfal 

i 

aftonifhment— to jxsv av <TVjx<nxv htoj [j.*tx rs Tsp^xvixa Qxvxtov /astsGxXXsto, 
xvTovy [xsyxXus xxi TrpoTspov tTxiv8/xsvovy ‘jtoXXw tots (xxXXov Oxv(/.x^yvxi.* 

Of this total change in the conduct of Tiberius Dion, p. 618, C., 
mentions an inftance or two which he thinks worfe than all the reft. 
He was, fays he, fo hardened in wickednefs, juft after the death of 
Drufus, who, he fays, died, in the cons, of Sulp. and Hater, u. c. 
775, that he would publilh whatever any one might fay of him in 

privatef—and—that he would punifh others for impiety;); a crime of 

\ 

which he him felt was guilty— xxxx t ara cvvi^xivzv xvtu, ttxvtx ts sksivx , 
t(f ois ra? xXXxs cos xxt xveQsvtxs ekoXxQv, xvtos ss sxvtov ‘nXyy^sXsiv, xxi TrpoasTt 

y.xt yjKsvxcr[A.ov opXicrxuvsiv —for which reafon, fome, fays he, thought he 
was belide himfelf, though many, on the contrary, did not think fo, 
and, becaufe he did almoft all things well — r« yxp xXXx xxi vrxw vxvtx 
Isovtus diuxu —of which difpofttion to adminifter raoft things fairly he 
mentions two very ftriking inftances, and then fubjoins this remark of 
his own—fo great inequality was there in the aftions of Tiberius!— 
roavTov fxtv Ihj to oixXxttov tv txis T iGspia 7 rpx^s<jiv yv .— And in the end of 
the next book—viz— 1 . 58, p. 639, B., he denies, moft expreftly, that 
fuch a total change fo fuddenly took place in his virtuous habits— 
for he there fays that, to the very laft, he had very many, if not, 
moft virtues. ^ 

* How different is this from what Suetonius says, iii. 26 —Verum liberatus 
metu, civilem admodam inter initia ac paulo minus quam privatum egit. 

f See p. 637, C. Tacitus, A. vi. 3S—contemptor suae infamise. 

+ Can Dion be correct in this ?—Does not Tacitus say, iii. 57, that the 
Senate decreed temples, &c. to him ?—And, iv. 52, that he worshipped 
Augustus ? And, c. 64, that the Gods were, on his account, favorable to 
the Romans ?—And, does not Suetonius say, iii. 36, that he expelled from 
Rome profane rites ? 



80 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince , 

V 

) 

Cut what reafon have we to think that Tiberius coniidered Germa* 
nicus as a competitor ?—What competitor could he have had, who, 
as Tacitus fays, A. iii. 56, had been, by Auguftus, inverted with 
tribunitial authority, as being the perfon who was to fucceed him— 
who, as both Paterculus, ii. 104, and Suetonius, iii. 21, fay, had, at 
his adoption, received that public teftimony from Auguftus—“ this 
1 do for the fake of the republic ” —who, as we have proved, chapter iii, 
had, five years before Auguftus died, been, as Paterculus fays, ii. 12 r, 
at his exprefs command, made equal to himfelf in every thing—who, 
as Suetonius contends, iii. 21, 23, was, by that moft prudent and 
moft circumfpeft prince Auguftus, who did nothing rafhly, efpecially 
a thing of fuch importance, appointed his fucceftor in conlideration 
of his part: fervices and his excellent character—who, as Tacitus, 
Suetonius, and Dion fay,* had demanded a colleague or colleagues 
and had been refufed—who, as Tacitus, A. i. 11, and Suetonius, iii 24, 
fay, would not confent to be a monarch, till the Senate, on their 

t 1 

knees, entreated him to refufe no longer ? —Who, as Suetonius fays, 
iii. 67, was, immediately on being made emperor, faluted with the 

I 

appellation of—“ father of his country ’ —and, who, as Tacitus fays, 
A. i. 46, was rcfle&ed on, by the terrified populace of Rome, as foon 
as they heard of the revolt of the army of Germany, for having hefi- 
tated fo long to accept the fovereignty, as to have caufed that mutiny. 
—What competitor, it may well be afked, could fuch a monarch be 
fuppofed to have had ?—Was Germanicus, at his death, of age fufti- 
cient to be coniidered by him, or any one eife, as a competitor?—- 
If he was only, as Tacitus fays in the laft mentioned chapter the 

* Tacitus, A. i. 11, 12.—Suetonius, iii. 25.—rDion, 1. 57, p. 603, A. 

* ^ \ # 

'/ 

V 


/ 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

Roman people complained, an adult, was he at all likely, but five 
years after, to be confidered by them as the competitor of his father ? 
—Had not Tiberius a fon, at the very time, nearly of the fame 
age as Germanicus r—Does not Tacitus fay, i. 34, that Germanicus, 
high as he was, only devoted himfelf to the fervice of 1 iberius ?—• 
And, ii. 57, 58, that he, in his lafl moments, declaimed, before his 
friends, any pretention to competition, and exhorted his wife to take 

care of offending him ?—If Tiberius had confidered him as a compe- 

\ v * N .. 

titor, would he not, inftead of complaining to the Senate of his 
going into Egypt, have ordered him to be punifhed for fo doing ?— 

4 

And as to the fudden and total change which, as Dion pretends, took 
place in his good habits, immediately after the death of Germanicus, 
to the aflonifhment of every body, is it noticed by any other writerT 

The evidence of Tacitus and Dion then, as to the excellence of the 
charafter of Tiberius, in the beginning of his reign, is precifely the 
fame. But how long that excellence continued they feem to difagree 

not a little. Tacitus, we have feen, fays, that he was, in the begin- 

% 

ning of his reign, fo notorioufly cruel, &c. that fatyrifts had then taken 
the liberty of writing againfl him. Dion, we find, fays, that he re- 

i 

mained the fame till the fixth year of his reign. Confequently, if 
Tacitus really meant to fay that Tiberius was fo foon changed, Dion 
evidently contradi£ls him. But as he appears to contradidf Tacitus, 
fo Tacitus, we fhall find, in return, flatly contradi&s him, and, fays 
enough to convince any one that he did not mean to fay that Tiberius 
was fo cruel in the fecond year of his reign. 

Tacitus takes not the leafl notice of this mofl fuiprifing change in 
the habits of Tiberius, immediately after the death of Germanicus— 
on the direft contrary, he has, in the end of chap, ii, recorded feveral 
celebrated a&s which he did in the fhort refidue of that fame year— 



91 


When-Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

two of which, it may not be amifs to adduce—chapter 87, he favs, 
that he again refufed to accept the title of “ father of his country”— 
which was now voted him for his beneficence to the commonaltv, in 
the time of fcarcity;—and, in the next chapter, he fays, that he ac¬ 
quired the fame of an ancient Roman for reje&ing the propofal of 
Arminius to poifon Adgandeftrius.—Tacitus not only favs this of 
Tiberius after the death of Germanicus—but he alfo fays, iv. 1, that 
it was not till the beginning of the 9th year, when this fudden change 
took place.—C. As—C. An. Cols, nonus Tiberio annus erat com- 
pofitae reipublicce, florentis dornus: (nam Germanici mortem inter 
profpera ducebat) cum repents turbare fortuna caepit; fevire ipfc* 
aut lsevientibus vires praebere.—And again—chapter 6—Congruens 
crediderim recenfere easterns quoque reipublicas partes, quibus modis 
ad earn diem habitae fint: quando Tiberio mutati in deterius principatus 
initium ille annus attulit.—Where, it fhould be obferved, he does 
not fay, as Dion does, that either his government, or all his moral 
habits were, of a fudden, totally changed from the beft to the worfl, 
nor, that he was fo loft to all fhame that he publifhed an account of 
all his vices (indeed he, iv. 57, fays—that it was his opinion, that he 
left Rome for the purpofe of concealing his crueltv and lull—faevitiam 
ac libidinem—and, in the end of the vi, that he pretended to be 
virtuous during the life of Drufus—that he had as many good as bad 
qualities during that of his mother—that he concealed his lulls, during 
that of Sejanus—and that he, when -74, and we prefume, a chriftian, 

*, How is this to be reconciled with what he had before said, i. 72—viz— 
hunc quoque asperavere carraina. incertis auctoribus vulgata in sa-vitiam of 
superbiam ejus et discordem cum ruatre animum ?—If he was notoriously 
cruel in the second year of his reign, how can he be said to have begun to be 
cruel in the eighth ? 


U 2 


When Tiberias began to be a bad Prince . 

purfued all manner of wicked ways openly and in defiance of decency,) 
but only, that he began to be cruel himfelf, or, to permit others to 
be fo—alluding, no doubt, to his having made Sejanus his prime 
minifter.—But where, in all this iv. book, do we find any inftance of 
the cruelty of Tiberius?—Indeed, if his cruelty was, as Tacitus fays, 
vi. 51, intertable—intertabilis fevitia—what reafon have we to expert 
any inftance of it recorded?—Let us, however, not think it too much 
to infpeft the particulars recorded in it with clofe attention. 

✓ v 

Chapter 6, he prefents us with an admirable pi£ture of Ids admi- 
nirtration of public affairs—a picture fcarcely inferior to that of Pater¬ 
culus, which has been thought adulatory—in the end of which 
chapter he mentions an inrtance of his beneficence to the dirtrefled 
people of Rome, and of his conrtant endeavors to prevent his provin- - 
cial prsefe&s from extorting by cruelty.—Res fuas Casfar f[iettatiJJimo 
cuique , quibufdam ignotis ex fama mandabat; femelque adfumpti 
tenebantur, prorfus fine modo, cum plerique iifdem negotiis lnfcnef- 
ccrent. Plebes acri quidem annona fatigabantur: fed nulla in eo 
culpa ex principe: quin infecunditati terrarum, aut afperis maris ob- 
viam iit, quantum impendio diligentiaque poterat. Et ne provinciae 
novis oneribus turbarentur, atque vetera fine avaritia et crudelitate 

magiftratuum tolerarent, providebat.. Corjicrum verbera , ademptiones 
» * 
bonorum aberant.—So beneficent and humane does Tacitus fay Tibe- N 

tIus was, long after the death of Germanicus, and as he fays, chap. 7, 

fill a little after the death of Drufus.—Quae cun£ta, non quidem 

c.omi via, fed horridus ac plerumque formidatus retinebat tamen, 

dcncc mortc Drufi vertereniur: nam dum fuperfuit , manferc .—In this 

fame year, it fhould be obferved, Drufus died.—And, fays Tacitus, 

chapter 8, Tiberius entered the Senate and complained that his 

mother’s age was now extreme—that is—above 80, and his own 

verging—or, 65.—After the burial of his fon, fays Tacitus, chap. 13, 


93 


i 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

I * V 

Tiberius attended to the concerns of the public with unremitting at¬ 
tention, his folace, fays he, was buhnefs—he frequented the courts 
of juftice, he heard the petitions of the allies.—At Tiberius nihil in- 
termiffa rerum cura, negotia pro folatiis accipiens, jus eivium, preces 
fociorum tra&abat.—Chapter 14, he fays, that Tiberius, after the 

praetors had, in vain, made many complaints againft the indecency of 

» 

a£tors, at Lift referred it to the Senate to deliberate about taking fome 

fteps to prevent their immodeft behavior—and particularly about the 

low buffoonery of one Ofcan, who did much mifehief.—It was, fays 

he, agreed to expel all players from Italy. And Suetonius, who feems 

to fay, chapter 37, that they caufcd riots, fays alfo, that Tiberius 

would never after permit them to return.—Chapter 15, he fays, that 

L. Capito, procurator of Alia, was, by the people of his province, 

(which, it fhould be obferved was imperial.) accufed of having op- 

1 ' 1 • ' 1 »■ 

prefled them, and was, by the permiffion of Tiberius, tried by the 

Senate, (who had even then, as both Tacitus, in this fame chapter, 

• 1 1 

and Suetonius, iii. 33, fay, the cognizance of all things,) and was, after 
a fair hearing, by them condemned to be banifhed—for which aft of 
juftice, continues he, and for a fimilar one, the year before, on 
C. Silanus, for embezzling money while procurator of Alia, the ftates 
of that country deft red permiffion to ere 61 a temple to Tiberius, to his 
mother, and to the Senate.—A ftrong proof how very few, even of 
his cotemporaries, as Dion remarks, confideted him as infane—and 
—as ftrong a proof that as few of them confidered him as irreligious 
-—though Dion did, and the prefent race of fcavans, ft ill do. 

Thefc are the inftances of the juft government of Tiberius, which 
he has recorded as having taken place in the end of the.9th year—or 
_the beginning of the 10th.—Confequently why fhould we riot think 

that he feertis to have eontradi&ed himfeif, very little lefts than Dion. 

• /■ # 

1 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

k “v ■ / 

Let us now proceed to enquire whether he has recorded any fuch 
like inftances among the tranfaclions of the ioth year. 

\ 

Chap. 29, 30, he fays, that Yibius Serenius, an exile at Amorgos, (one 
of the Cyclades) who had, eight years before, on the death of Libo, 

t 

(who had endeavored to excite a rebellion, and who, to evade a public 
punifhment, hadftarved himfelf,) been banifhed, was, in the ioth year 
of Tiberius, accufed, and by his own fon, of a plot againft the govern¬ 
ment and life of Casfar—and—moreover that Carnutus, a praetor, was 
alfo accufed of having engaged to fupply Serenus with money for the 
above purpofe. And what was the fentence of thofe two confpirators? 
fcil.—Carnutus, before fentence was paifed, deftroyed himfelf, which, 
furely, feems to imply guilt. And what was the fentence of Serenus 
—fcil.—he was fent back to Amorgos.—Chapter 31, he mentions 
three inftances more of the upright conduct of Tiberius, as a monarch. 
He fays, firfl, that C. Cominius, a knight, was accufed of having 
written an opprobrious poem on Tiberius—that he was tried for it, 
by the Senate, and convifled. And what punilhment was inflicted on 

him?—-Tiberius, he fays, forgave him, and, at the intercedion of his 

. / 

brother who was a fenator.—He fays, fecondly, in the fame chapter, 
that P. Suilius, a quaeftor, was, in the fame year, convi&ed of having 

v • > . , * • , ’1 

received a bribe, as judge, and banifhed.* Lallly—Catus Firmius, a 
fenator, was, fays he, convi&ed of having brought a falfe accufation 
of treafon againfl his own filler—and, by the permiflion of CaTar, 
was expelled the Senate.—Chapter 32, he complains that he was 

N N • 

aware how uninterelling his hifbory mull appear to moll of his readers 

\ ■ 

* Under Tiberius, says Philo in Flac. p. 758, some prefects, who had been 
oppressive to their subjects, were, on their relurn to Rome, punished for it, 
and especially when complaints were made against them by the injured per¬ 
sons.—This subjoins he, p. 759, made them very careful to adminster justice 
to all. 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

—that he had no external events to record, and as to internal, they 
were by no means fo remarkable, as thofe of former times—that every 
tiling (notwithftanding Tiberius wasfo cruel, and had introduced the 
moll grievous pefl, and had encouraged Hifpo,) moved fmoothly.— 
Of courfc, if things moved fo fmoothly, in the beginning of the loth 

year, how can we be expended to believe that either he or his deputies 

/ - y 

began to be cruel in the beginning of the fecond or in that of the 9th? 
In the next chapter, 33, he complains again that fo far were internal 
things from moving fmoothly, that he had nothing to do but to make 
3 chain of cruel mandates, continued accufations, falfe friendlhips, 
the definition of innocent perfons, and fuch like events—of courfe, 
why fhould we not fuppofe that this change took place, not in the 9th, 
but in the beginning of the 10th ? —And, why fhould we not expert to 
find, that the fequel contains nothing elfe befrdes a continuation of 
fuch like occurrences—at leafl for the following year—for after that, 
it feems, he was forced from his feat of government either by his 
mother, or the cunning of Sejanus,—And yet if he, as Tacitus fays, 
had, from the death of his fon, to that of his mother, as many good 
qualities as bad—and retired from Rome in order to conceal his bad 
qualities—that is—as he fays, chapter 57, his cruelty (meaning, 
furely, if he was obliged to give way to his mother, not his political 

cruelty,) and lull, we cannot fuppofe that Tacitus knew enough of 

* 

his vices, which he took fo much care to conceal, to be able to retail 
the particulars. Indeed, he, on the contrary, avoids giving us a con¬ 
tinued account of thofe cruel mandates, &c. and takes care to furnifh 
us with many anecdotes of his good deeds, and even two or three mod 
remarkable ones, and, it may be remarked, even after he went to Cap- 
reae. Chapter 37, 38, he tells us how nobly he behaved when deputies 

from further Spain applied to the Senate, for leave to build a temple 

/ 

to him and to his mother, (which, of courfe, feems to imply that 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

/ ' . , 

the people of Spain, as well as thofe of Alia, did not confider him as 
an inhuman monfter, for furely the people of Spain did not worfhip 
the devil, but rather as being one of the befl of men,) he, fays 
Tacitus, went to the Senate and deprecated the projedt moft earneflly, 
and ended his fpeech with thofe moft remarkable words-r-Ptoinde 
focios, cives, et Deos ipfos precor: (which, furely, is no proof of 
his impiety,) hos, ut mini ad finem ufque vitae, quietam et intelligen- 
tem humani divinique juris mentem duint; illos, ut quandocunque 

i i t\ 

concedero, cum laude et bonis recordationibus, fadta atque famam 
nominis mei profequantur—which refufal fome, fays Tacitus, attri¬ 
buted to modefty , many to diffidence , and a few to degeneracy —to the 
opinion of which laft fet, Tacitus himfelf feems to fubferibe, by ail 
obfervation or two of his own, which he fubjoins—Optumos quippe 
mortalium altiiiima cupere—and—nam contemptu famae contemni 
' virtutes— the former of which feems to imply that Tacitus thought him 
ftill the beft of men—and the latter that he fufpedted that he then 
began to defpife fame, and, of courfe, the (incerity of what he then 
faid in the Senate.—But if he had before encouraged the iffuing of 
thofe cruel mandates, &c. why fhould any one have thought him the 
beft of men?—Or—why fhould anyone have thought of requefting 
permiftlon of the Senate to eredt a temple to him?—Chapter 57, he 
fays, that (notwithftanding what moft Jiad faid) he was inclined to 
fufpedt that the real caufe of his retirement from Rome was to con¬ 
ceal his cruelty and lull, which he could not do at Rome.—But what 
occalion was there for endeavouring to conceal his cruelty, if lie had 
iftued cruel mandates, See..? 

This alone is fufficient to prove that Tacitus, like Dion, has 
contradidled himfelf with regard to the time when this fuppofed 
change in Tiberius took place.—But there are ftill other chapters in 


/ 


97 

\ 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

/ 

m I V 1 

this book, to which we think it proper to refer on this point, which 

\ v 

relate to tranfaftions which, Suetonius fays, iii. 40, took place after 
• * 

he went to Caprese—they are 64 and 66.—In the 64th chapter, he 
mentions the fire on Mount Ccelius, which, he fays, the populace 
imputed to his abfence—feralemque annum ferebant, et ominibus ad- 
verfis fufceptum principi confilium abfentise. Now, if Tiberius had 
been fo very cruel, would the populace have thus regretted his de¬ 
parture ? Or, would he have flown to their afliftance ? So, he fays, 
lie did—and received the thanks of all ranks for his beneficence—and 
for his being fo great a favorite with the Gods as to be the means of 
flopping it ? But would the Gods have fliewn fo particular a favor to 
fo inhuman, fo lewd a wretch? What an inconfiderate fool then muft 

this prince of hiftorians have been ?—The laft chapter, to which it 

\ 

feems not amifs to refer, on this matter, is the 66th—in which, after 
having again adverted to the beneficence of Tiberius, on the before 
mentioned occafion, he complains that the power of accufers grew 
flronger and more dangerous, without oppofition, every day—that 
Varus Quin&ilius, a relative of Ccefar, was, among others, attacked 

by Domitius Afer and Publius Dolabella his kinfman—that the Senate 

■* 

agreed to defer the matter till the emperor Ihould return—becaufe 
he was, for the time, the only fuffuge from urging evils—quod unum, 
urgentium malorum fuffugium in tempus erat. 

From all that Tacitus has faid in thofe feveral chapters, why fhould 
we not conclude that Tiberius, mull have been, not cruel, but moil 
humane, till after the fall of the xlmphitheatre of Fidenae—that is— 
as Suetonius fays, till after his retirement ? And why fliould we not 
alfo conclude from what he fays, iv. 57, and v. 3, that he had it not 
in his power to do much harm before the death of his mother?— 


X 


98 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince , 

For, in the firft mentioned chapter, he fays, that tradition affirmed 
that he had been extruded from Rome by her impotency—and, 
in the laft mentioned, he fays, that while the was alive, neither 
he nor Sejanus could prefume to counteract her will—but that 
after her death, their tyranny was exceffive.-Caeterum ex eo 

i 

(namely the death of his mother) prcerupta jam et urgens dominatio : 

nam incolumi Augufta, erat adhuc perfugium, quia Tiberio invete- 

$ 

ratum erga matrem obfequium: neque Sejanus audebat au&oritati 
parentis anteire, tunc velut fra?nis exfoluti proruperunt. 

Tacitus then, we find, not only contradicts the report of Dion con¬ 
cerning the time when this great change in the conduCt of Tiberius 
took place, but alfo his own. Let us now then try to fatisfy ourfelves 
which of their reports Suetonius follows—and, in order to do this the 
more effectually, let us hear what he fays of his conduCt, from the 
fifth or fixth year of his monarchy, till that in which he retired to 

Chapter 26, he begins with faying, that when Tiberius was, on the 
death of Libo, and not as Dion fays, on that of Germanicus, releafed 
from the fear of competitors, he, at firfl, behaved, not like a hypo¬ 
crite who had been releafed from reftraint, but with the greateft civi¬ 
lity and almoft like a private perfon.—Yerum liberatus metu, civilem 
admodum inter initia ac paullo minus quam privatum egit. And 
when many of the greateft honors were \oted him, he would accept 
but few, and thofe of the leaft value.—Ex plurimis maximifque liono- 
ribus, praeter paucos et modicos non recepit.—Suetonius then pro¬ 
ceeds to mention feveral inftances of the honors which he refufed. 
In the 17th chapter , Suetonius mentions feveral inftances of his anti¬ 
pathy to adulation. In the 28//$, he gives us two or three moft 
ftriking inftances of his regard for civil liberty—or rather of his tole- 



/ 


I 


99 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

\ \ 

ration of the abufe of it. In the iqth, he fays, that the manner in 
which he accofted perfons, ot every defeription, almoft exceeded 
humanity—and, of this too he gives an inftance or two. In the 30th, 
he fays, that he referred all cafes to the Senate, however trifling or 
important, whether relating to public or to his own private matters, 
to the army, or to foreign affairs: and he concludes it with this re¬ 
markable inftance of his confidence in the members of it—“ he never 
" but once entered the Senate with any attendant—and that was when 
“ he was fo unwell as to be unable to go without aftiltance—and, then 
Si no fooner had he entered, than he difmifted the very few that were 
“ with him. ,, —Nunquam curiam intravit nifi folus : lexica quondam 
introlatus aeger, comites a fe removit. In the 31/?, he gives feveral 
inftances of motions that were carried againft him in the Senate. At 
which, fays Suetonius, he fhewed no fort of difpleafure. On one of 
-thofe occafions, he obferves, that when a divifton took place, he went 
over to the minority and not a lingle fenator followed.—This chapter 
too he concludes with an account of the very condefcending manner 
in which he received foreign ambaftadors, fome of whom, it feems, 
the confuls took the liberty of fending for and opening their creden¬ 
tials. In the 3 id chapter , he mentions feveral inftances more of his 
condefeenfion both with regard to the Senate and to private individuals 
of every clafs—that with regard to the Senate is of fo remarkable a 
nature that it muft not be overlooked, and becaufe it feems to be a 
pretty complete refutation of thofe who entertain doubts of the a<fta 
Pilati. It is this—Corripuit confulares exercitibus prsepofitos, quod 
non de rebus geftis Senatui feriberent—this he fays in the beginning 
of this chapter—and he ^concludes it with as remarkable an inftance 
of the prote&ion which fee (as Tacitus, we have feen, alfo notices) 

X 2 

' .i . 

) * 

> ) ) 



1 





100 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

, / * 

afforded the provinces—viz—when the prcefe&s of provinces advifed 
him to augment his tributes—rhis reply was—a good Ihepherd would 
not think of flaying his ffieep—Boni paAoris efle tondere pecus, non 
deglubere. Of this reply, it may not be amifs to obferve, both 
Jofephus and Dion take notice. Laflly— in the 33 ^ chapter , he begins 
with telling us, not as Tacitus does, iv. 1, that his adminiftration 
was, in the ninth year of his reign, all at once deteriorated—cum 
repente turbare fortuna ccepit: faevire ipfe aut feevientibus vires pree- 
bere—but, on the contrary, that he afted the prince very gradually, 

1 

and for a long time varioufly, and he might, it feems, have added, 
till his feceflion, for in all that interval he does not produce a Angle 
inflance of tyranny.—But let us attend to the whole of this chapter, 
as it appears to afford fome curious information. 

Paulatim Principem exercuit, prafflititque—by which it appears that, 
for a long time, he did not affume the prince—and, that when he 
began to put on the real prince, he only did it by degrees—and, fo it 
appears, by what follows—viz—etfi varium diu commodiorem tamen 
faqaius, et ad publicas utilitates proniorem. By which it appears that 
when he did begin to a£l the prince, he was, for a long time , rather 
a good than a bad one.—So he feems to fay, by what he again fub- 
joins—viz—Ac primo eatenus interveniebat ne quid perperam fieret. 
And what did he do better than this before he began to be a bad prince? 
Xtaque et conAitutiones quafdam Senatus refeidit. What ? Did he 
therefore refeind certain degrees of the Senate, becaufe they were con- 
feffedly wrong ?—And is this any inAance of his variety ? Is it not 
rather of that of the Senate ?—Et, continues he, Magiflratibus, pro 
tribunali cognofcentibus plerumque fe offerebat confiliarium, affi- 
debatque miflim, vel ex adverfo in parte primori;—a pretty Arong 

proof that he was not, as Tacitus fays, iv. 57, afliamed to be feen— 

and that he was Aill only anxious that Arift iuAice fhould be 

ri % . ’ t , I. > i , 

c , * X x > 

C ( N - 

f t c.k 
t < c' s 

< C c \ 

' . 4 




V 


101 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

- ✓ 

adminiftered—as appears more clearly by what he fays in the fequel—• 
viz—et, fl quern reorum gratia elabi rumor eflet, fubitus aderat, judi- 
cefque aut e piano, aut e quaeiitoris tribunali, legum et religionis, et 
noxre de qua cognofcerent admonebat. And then he concludes the 

\ z 

chapter with an inflance of his concern for public morals—viz—atque 
etiam fi quae publicis moribus defidia aut mala confuetudine labarent, 
corrigenda fufcepit—which, Tacitus obferves, i. 54, he did not dare 
to attempt to correct in the beginning of his reign.— In the 34 th chap. 
he mentions fome inftances of his attention to public manners and 
public expences—and in the conclufion of it records an inftance of 
the great refpedl which the people were inclined to fhew him.— 
In the 3$th chapter , he mentions feveral inhances of his attention to 
the private morals of individuals of every rank, both male and female. 
In the 36th chapter , he mentions two or three inftances of his concern 
for the tranquillity of Rome by expelling feveral religious fedls who 
were fuppofed to entertain opinions hoftilc to thofe of the Romans.— 
Laftly, in the 3 *]th chap., he tells us how careful he was to preferve the 
peace of the public—by Rationing the military all over Italy in more 
numerous parties than ufual—and by colledting the praetorian guards 
at Rome—which, we are told by Dion, 1 . 57, p. 619, D., he did in 
the icth or 1 ith year of his reign—how he punifhed fome popular 
tumults moft grievoufly—and took care to prevent them for the future 
—how he banifhed fome for making a riot in the theatre—and im- 
prifoned others for life for having made a difturbance at Pollentia.— 
In the fame chapter, he alfo tells us how he abolifhed all the afyla in 
the empire—and how he fuppreiTed, by his legates, fome hojiile com¬ 
motions —and that he never after undertook any expedition. 

This is the account which Suetonius gives us in thofe 12 chapters 

of the monarchical chara&er of Tiberius, till very near the time of 

' * * > 

his fecefiion. Suetonius then, we find, does not give us the leaft 


\ 




102 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

encouragement to think that this fuppofed change, in the moral habits 
of Tiberius, happened in the 5th year of his reign, after the death of 
Germanicus, though it, as Dion fays, caufed fo great an adonifh- 
mcnt, nor, in the 9th, when he drd employed Sejanus as his prime 
minifler, on the contrary, he, we have feen, gives us a mod excellent 
account of the former part of his reign, till, at lead, the time when 
he collected all the praetorian troops at Rome, if not till after he lod 
his fon, and went into Campania. He expredly fays, chapter 42, 
that he became totally vicious, not before he went to Capreae, nor 
before the difader at Fidenae—but after that event—and not after the 
death of Sejanus, as Tacitus intimates, but before that event, when 
he was about 70 years of age.—Casterum fecreti licentiam nadhis, et 
quad civitatis oculis remotus, cunda Jimul vitia male diu difdmulata 
tandem profudit. Suetonius moreover fays, chapter 61, that, after 
Tiberius became fo totally vicious he alfo became cruel.—Mox in 
omne genus crudelitatis erupit, nunquam dedciente materia: but 
againd whom principally did he exercife his vengeance ?—fcil—cum 
primo matris, deinde nepotum et nurus, podremo Sejani familiares 
atque etiam notos perfequeretur. Pod cujus interitum vel feeviffimus 
exditit. 

c ■ * 

On reconddering all that thofe writers fay of this furpridng change 
in the habits of Tiberius, what do we dnd but felf-contradi&ions and 
contradi&ions of each other ? And, fo many, that we feem to have 
reafon enough to doubt whether any fuch change took place in him 
at all. 

Tacitus fays, vi. 30, that accufers were, when opportunity offered, 
punifhed.—And that Tiberius would not attempt to moled Lentulus 
Gastulicus, though a relative of Sejanus, becaufe he was aware that 

his government dood by fame rather than by force —magifque fama 

\ 

\ 

1 * * ^ ; , 

1 1 ' ' / ' / • 


/ 


103 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince ♦ 

quam vi, flare res fuas. And again, 45, that when a great part of 
Rome was deflroyed, in the laft year of his reign, he, once more, 
obtained, from all ranks of people, the greatefl honors for his bene¬ 
ficence to the fufferers. 

Dion, befides faying, as we have feen, that Tiberius had very many 
if not mofl virtues to the laft, fays alfo, 1 . 58, p. 633, A., that he 
did not attempt to moleft Sejanus the prsetor, though he had, the 
year after the death of his brother, dared to infult him publicly. And 
in the end of the next page, he fays, that Tiberius, in the following 
year, commanded all the mofl a&ive of the accufers to be put to 
death in one day. Now if Tiberius had been fo cruel a tyrant would 
L. Sejanus have dared to infult him publicly, and, but the year after 
the death of his brother. 

Jofephus, A. xvii, gives the fullefl account of any, of the manner 
in which he fpent three or four of his laft years at Caprea?. And 
though he fays that he was fond of detaining accufed perfons a long 
while in prifon, yet he fays nothing of his extreme vicioufnefs. 

Juvenal defcribes his refidence at Capreae as remarkable only for 
his inactivity, and his inattention to bufinefs, and his being furrounded 
by a party of Chaldceans—he likcwife fays nothing of his extreme 
vicioufnefs. 

Paterculus, who ferved under him nine fucceftive years, and wrote 
the hiftory of the firft fixteen years of his reign, and addreffed it to 
one of the then confuls, fays, ii. 126, that he was the mofl excellent, 
in every refpeCl, of all princes. So admirable, indeed, is the defcrip- 
tion which he gives of his reign during that period, that it has been 
confidered by the conduClors of one of our principal feminaries of 
olaftic learning as merely adulatory, though both Tacitus and Sueto* 


101 


When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

r.ius fay nearly the fame of him—the former, iv. 6, in the ninth year 
of his reign, and the latter in the 12 chapters above referred to, no 
one knows how much later. 

Valerius Maximus, who wrote after the death of Sejanus, and dedi¬ 
cated his work, which is all through of a religious and moral tendency, 
to Tiberius, addrefles him, in the preface, as the patron of virtue and 
the enemy of vice— cujus cadefli providentia, virtutes de quibus 
di&urus fum benigniffime foventur: vitia feveriffime vindicantur.—- 
And, ix. 11, he fays, both the Gods and men were, as foon as they 
knew of the treachery of Sejanus, ready to crufh him. Itaque, fays 
he, flat pax, valent leges, fincerus privati ac publici officii tenor 
fervatur—which, furely, feems to imply that fuch had been the hate 
of things before. 

Seneca, the elder, finds not the leaf! fault with the conduct of 
Tiberius in any part of his works. On the contrary, he, in one or 
two places, fpeaks of him as a pattern of filial piety, of patiently en¬ 
during the greatefl afflictions, and, as being one of the greateft of 
men, on whom nature had beftowed more good qualities than he 
could eafily enumerate. In his Confol. ad Marc, (for molt certainly 
that Confol. was written by him, and not, as Liplius fays, by his fon, 
nor, as he alfo fays, after the death of Tiberius, but juft before that 
of Livia, when his fon was not arrived at manhood,) he propofes the 
example of the moft eminent men to her, and laft of all, that of 
Tiberius , not as delighting in human mifery, (for, it feems, by what 
he fays, chapter xix, that at that time Marcia had not witneffed any 
public calamity,) but of patient fortitude under the lofs of relatives. 
—Tiberius Caefar, et quern genuerat, et quern adoptaverat, amifit : 
ipfe tamen pro roflris laudavit filium, ftetitque in confpeClu pofito 
corpore, interjeClo tantummodo velamento, quod pontificis oculos a 


10,5 

♦ 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

funere arceret, et, Rente populo romano, non flexit vultnm: expe- 
riendum fe dedit Sejano, ad latus flanti, quam patienter poflet fuoS 
perdere. Yidefne quanta copia virorum maximorum fit, quos non 
excepit hie omnia profternens cafus ? In quos tot animi bona, tot 
ornamenta publice privatimque congefta erant ? Thus Seneca, the 
elder, fpeaks of Tiberius, even to Marcia—of Sejanus, he, in the 
fame work, fpeaks of his having caufed Cordus, her father, to be 
perfecuted, not for extolling, as Tacitus fays, Brutus and Caftius as 
the laft of Romans, but for fpeaking difrefpedtfully of himfelf, and as 
having fed his dogs with human blood: but though he fpeaks thus of him* 
yet he does not fay that Tiberius was the caufe of it—or, that he was 
the caufe of that vafl power of Sejanus, he fays, that Sejanus had ufurp- 
ed it—Sejanum in cervices noftros nec imponi quidem fed afeendere. 

SENECA, the younger, too, though he, De Benef, 1 . iii, 26, fpeaks 
of the infamous practice of accufing—yet he does not fay that Tibe¬ 
rius encouraged it. He too, on the contrary, fays, that Sejanus, was 
the onfetter—and, F.p. xxi, that Tiberius was great while he lived—• 
and, Apocoh, that he followed Auguflus to the manfion of the Gods, 

PHILO, ad C. p. 783, demands of the Egyptians, who had been the 
worlhippers of Caius, why they had not worfhipped Tiberius, the 
predecelfor of Caius, who, during the whole courfe of his monarchy, 
had enjoyed luch a peace as had never before been known, (the 
feveral bleffings and extent of which he enumerates p. 769.) Was it, 
fays he, becaufe Tiberius was inferior in erudition ? Who, replies he, 
among all the celebrated geniufes of his time —ruv nar xvrov axy.vxmvtu/v 
— was more prudent or more rational— Koytuurepos .—Was it, fays he, 
becaufe Tiberius was, in years, inferior to Caius ?—What king or 
emperor grew old more honorably?—Even in his youth, he was, fay 5 ; 


y 


/ 


I 


I 


100 

I ■ ' : 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince. 

lie, for his difcernment called the [age —and yet, fubjoins Philo, this 
fo great and fo excellent a prince has been neglected by you. And, 
afterwards, in the fame work, p. 799, Philo, reprefents Agrippa, who 
redded at Capreae with Tiberius during the lad three years of his life, 
and who was imprifoned by Tiberius, as fpeaking of the conduft of 
Tiberius towards the Jews, even to Caius, as having been but a con¬ 
tinuation of that of Augudus. 

CLEMENS, of Rome, too, who, in feveral of his works, fays, that 
he was related to Tiberius, fays alfo, Recog. x. 55, and again, in his 
account of the proceedings of Peter, 135, that he, after the Gofpel 
had been preached to Gentiles, made, both at Rome and in the pro¬ 
vinces, inquilition for the maleficent, for the purpofe of punifhing 
them, even with death—and that he ordered Simon, the adverfary of 

* 1 

the Apodles, to be apprehended. And, de G. P. 143, he even fays, 
that this fame unfeeling tyrant, fhed tears abundantly— 9 BffXUS ExAdf/Ey—-» 
at feeing again Faudus and Mathilda. 

The character of Tiberius then was, by the account of even Taci- 

t 

tus, Suetonius, and Dion, mod excellent till he was 56 years old, 
and his government was, by the evidence of the fame writers, alfo, 
mod excellent for many years of his monarchy, and though they fay, 
that it was intolerably bad afterwards, yet they cannot agree about 
the time when it began to be fo very bad. Suetonius fays, that it 
was not extremely bad for a long time—that is—till he went to 
Capreae. And Tacitus fays, vi, that it was a mixture of good and 
bad while his mother lived—that it dood almod to the lad by fame 
Tather than by force. And Dion fays, 1 . 58, that it always had a great 
mixture of good. But by the account of thofe who lived under it, 
not only Romans, and the bed of Romans, but Jews, and Chridians, 
it was always mod excellent. 


( 


! 


V 


107 

When Tiberius began to be a bad Prince . 

Now as fo many and fo very refpettable cotemporary writers, of 
different religions, declare, with one confent, that the whole reign of 
Tiberius, was fo very excellent—and even Tacitus fays, that his 
government, in the 21ft year of his reign, flood more by fame than 
by force ;—and—that he was, but about fix months before he died, 
thanked, by all ranks of people, for his beneficence to the fufferers 
by fire at Rome;—and, as Suetonius too, fays, that he was buried moil 
fnagnificently, at the public expence, and praifed by Caius with many 
fears—how can any one expe& to be believed who dares to aflert that 
the confuls, in any fucceeding reign, confidered him as unworthy of 
a place in the line of Roman emperors ? And yet Dion, we find, 
1 . 59, p. 646, C., dared to affert it—and moreover, 1 . 60, p. 667, D., 
that he continued to be confidered fo from the firfl of Caius, u. c. 
791, till his own time. The evidence of the Senecas alone would, 
one would think, have kept him from aflerting it—or—that of Sueto¬ 
nius concerning Caius and Claudius—for of the former, he fays, 30, 
that he vindicated the cruelty of Tiberius to the Senate, on the 
fcore that they were the caufe of it—and of the latter, he fays, v. 11, 
that he ere£led the marble arch near Pompcy’s Theatre, which the 
Senate had, on fome great occafion, voted to him. 


* ' 

\ 



✓ 


Y2 




1 


t 


108 




CHAPTER VII. 


Why Tiberius left Rome, ancl why he went to Caprece. 

T ' ... -r J , 

IBERIUS, we are told by Tacitus, iv. 57, went, in the conful- 
fhip of Cn. Lentulus and C. Calvifius, and in the 12th year of his 
reign, and the 68th year of his age, (which, Tacitus obferves, iii 59, 
was acknowledged, four years before, to have been lefs qualified for 
bufinefs than it had been,) from Rome into Campania, for, as both he 

and Suetonius fay, the pretended purpofe of dedicating two temples, 

' # 

the one at Capua, and the other at Nola, but as Tacitus alone fays, 
with a long formed defign of living at a diflance from Rome.—Inter 
quae diu meditato, prolatoque fepius confilio, tandem, &c.; fed certus 
procul ab urbe degere.—This, it may not be amifs to obferve, Tacitus 
fays, was the fecond time he went from Rome into Campania, and, 
with the fame defign.—He, fays Tacitus, A. iii. 31, went thither 
about five years before—viz—in the beginning of u. c. 774, when he 
and his fon Drufus were confuls—by degrees meditating a long and 
continued abfence—longam et continuam abfentiam paulatim medi- 
tans.—At that time, he remained there till the following year, when 
his mother was taken fuddenly ill, and, he was obliged to return in 








109 




Why Tiberius left Rome , and why lie went to Caprecz. 

hafte.—The reafon of his going into Campania this firft time, was, 
fays Tacitus, not to leave Rome for ever, (though, he fays, he then 
had it in contemplation,) but either to re-eftablifh his health, or, to 
leave the management of affairs to Drufus. But can either of thofe 
reafons have been the right one ?—Had Tiberius then been ill ?—. 

. V 

Suetonius fays, iii. 68, that he was always moft remarkably well— 
Valetudine profperrima ulus ell—and efpecially after he became em- 

N 

peror—tempore quidem principatus, pene toto, prope illaffa.—And, 
as to the other reafon, does not Tacitus himfelf fay, that Drufus was, 
in that year, extremely ill ?—And, that Tiberius, though worn out 
with age, was obliged to give, as ufual, directions about every thing 
—efpecially about the revolt in Africa, under Tacfarinas, and that in 
Gaul, under Sacrovir, and that in Belguim, under Julius Florus.— 
And does he not fay, c. 44, that Tiberius was blamed, by difeon- 
tented perfons, for permitting accufers to occupy all his attention, 
when affairs of fuch moment demanded it moft imperioufly?—Incre- 
pabantque Tiberium, quod in tanto rerum motu, libcllis accufatorum 
infumeret operam.—And does he not again fay, c. 52, 56, that Tibe¬ 
rius was, in the following year, when every thing was quiet, and a law 
was propofed to reftrain luxurious living—and by the means of in¬ 
formers,* confulted on that occafion—and—that he then obtained 
univerfal applaufe for having objeCled to the means of enforcing it— 
Tiberius fama moderationis parta, quod ingruentes accufatores repref- 
ferat.—Why then, all this conndered, fhould we fuppofe that Tibe¬ 
rius left Rome, either for the fake of his health, or, to leave the 
management of public affairs to Drulus ? 

> 

* How is it that Tacitus has given so different an account of the conduct 
of Tiberius towards accusers in so short a time?—Is it at all likely that any 
prince would, in the course of a year, be censured for encouraging informers, 
and applauded for discouraging them. 


110 A 

i 

. 1 ' , • 

Why Tiberius left Rome> and why he went to Caprea. 

Tiberius however, as Tacitus, we have feen, fays, went into Cam¬ 
pania both in the year 774 and 779 with the fame fixed defign— 
viz—to live continually at a diftance from Rome—but if fuch was his 
intention, in the lafl mentioned year, where was the propriety of 
telling us that the aflrologers foretold that he would never return? 
And if he had fo long made up his mind on that point, where was the 
neceflity of pretending that he was only going to dedicate temples ?— 
And if he gave out that he was only going to Capua and Nola to 
dedicate temples, where was the neceflity of publifhing, as Tacitus 
fays, iv. 67, an edift forbidding any one to come near him, and to 

lv 

place fentinels, here and there, on the road to keep off the people?— 
Had not the people of Campania feen enough of him, when he fpent 
more than a year with them about four or five years before ? 

Tacitus, befides telling us, iii. 31, that fuch had been his fixed 
defign feveral years before, and even the year before his mother was 
fo alarmingly ill—and, iv. 58, that he was, eleven years, voluntarily 
abfent from Rome, and, iii. 59, that his age was, four years before, 
worn out with labour.—Befides telling us all this, Tacitus who, it 
feems, was neither fatisfied with the reafon afligned by moji writers 
for his leaving Rome and continuing to remove from place to place 
in Campania, for about two years, and then retiring to Capreae, and 
refiding in folitude nine years more—nor with that afligned by general 
tradition —nor with that afligned by the few —(for they all feem to 
have thought that the fame motive which determined him to take the 
firfl Rep, alfo determined him to take the other,)—fets himfelf, 
A. iv. 57, to aflign the real motive which, he flatters himfelf, may 
have been this—viz—to conceal his cruelty and lufl—faevitiam ac 
libidinem.—But though this may have been the reafon of his feceflion 
to Capreae, is it likely to have been that for his traverfing Campania 


i 


I. 


Ill 

• I 

Whi) Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Capreae. 

fo long ?—And in company with fo many men of learning ?—Could 
he, during his peregrination in Campania, have concealed either of 
thofe vices?—What occafion had he, who, ten years before, had 
introduced the graviffimum exitium into Rome, who had then been 
publicly fatyrized for his cruelty, and who had, two years before, 
ifiued cruel mandates—faiva juifa—to conceal his cruelty ?—And by 
what lull could a man, who had been twice married and had grand¬ 
children, be fuppofed to have been actuated ?—Does not the former 
part of this double inhnuation feem to militate againft the latter ?— 
If he was fo cruel a tyrant, would he, at the age of 70, have been 
alhamed of his vices?—Was he not, as Tacitus himfelf fays, iii. 10, 
valid in defpiling rumors—Contra Tiberium fpernandis rumoribus 
validum.—And was he not, as he again fays, vi. 38, a defpifer of his 
own infamy—Contemptor fuae infamise ? Not only Tacitus fays 
fo, but Suetonius and Dion too. Suetonius, in two places—viz— 
iii. 28, 66.—In the firft mentioned chapter, he fays—Sed adverfus 
convitia malofque rumores et famofa de fe ac fuis carmina firmus ac 
patiens fubinde jaflabat—In civitate libera linguam mentemque libe- 
ras efle debere.—In the other, he fays—nonnunquam eadem contem- 
neret, et proferret ultro atque vulgaret.—Dion, 1 . 57, p. 618, fays 

\ 

the fame as Suetonius does in the chapter lafl quoted—and, 1 . 58, 
p. 633, B., he fays, that Sejanus, the praetor, had the audacity, after 
the death of his brother, to expofe the baldnefs of Tiberius, and that 
he took no notice of it.—If he was fo vicious why did the Romans 
periift in worfhiping him, in fpite of his edift to the contrary ?—Sueto¬ 
nius, we have feen, in the laft chap., fays, c. 42, that he was not noto- 
rioufly vicious before he went to Capre3e, but, after the fall of the 
Amphitheatre at Fidenae—that is—after he became a Chriftian.—AncJ 
cotemporary writers, Jews, Romans, and Chriftians, we have alfo 
feen, in the fame chapter, fay that he never was vicious. 


/ 


/ 






Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Caprctr. 

• ^ 

But as the reafon affigned by Tacitus as being, in his opinion, pre¬ 
ferable to either of the others, is not at all likely to have been the 
true reafon.—Let us proceed to examine the other three which he 
reje&s, for the purpofe of fatisfying ourfelves whether any of them 
be fo probable as to render all enquiry on this fubjeft ufelefs. 

Firji, he fays, that moft authors had left it on record, that Tiberius 
had been prevailed on to leave Rome by the artifice ofSejanus, and, 
in order that he might be able to get the management of the govern¬ 
ment into his own hands—the credibility of which report he himfelf 
combats, and with the greatefl fuccefs, by obferving that Tiberius 
continued a voluntary exile fix years after he had caufed Sejanus to be 
put to death.—This fmgle objection he thought quite fufficient to fet 
afide the report of mofl of his biographical predeceffors.—But this 
objection is not the only one which he makes to their report, nor the 
leafl forcible.—He, both before and after this chapter, has, without 

i * 

intending it, furnifhed us with feveral others equally good.—A. iii. 31, 
he, we have feen, fays, that Tiberius had, while his fon Drufus was 
alive, and two or three years before he thought of employing Sejanus, 
by degrees meditated a long and continued abfence.—In the firfl chap, 
of this fame book, he fays, that Sejanus was no match for Tiberius 
in craft, or, rather he fliould have faid, in wifdom, or, the right 
application of knowledge—non tarn folertia (quippe iifdem artibus 
viftus erat.)—In the 39th and 40th he relates a remarkable inflance 
of it—he there fays, that Tiberius, but the year before he left Rome, 
on being folicited by Sejanus to grant him permiflion to marry Livilla, 
the widow of his deceafed fon, contrived, in the mofl exquifite and 
delicate manner, to evade his requefl, and to convince him of the 
vanity and abfurdity of his pretentions.—In the 58th chapter, he fays, 
that Tiberius, when he left Rome, took Sejanus with him as one of 



I 


m ! 

\ 

/ -t 

Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Caprcw. 

his chofen companions, and detained him all the while he was in 
Campania—and that he alfo took him to Capreae, where he alfo 
detained him fo long, that the Senate, at laft, found themfelves obliged, 
notwithstanding the mother of Tiberius was then alive, to petition, 
both of them, repeatedly, to return—and, finding all their petitions 
difregarded, they thought it necefiary for them to go, in a body, to 
the very coaft of Campania, to intreat them to return, if not, merely 
to get a fight of them.—Which, finely, feems to imply not only that 
Sejanus, though, by fuppofition, the director of every thing, would 
not go near them, but that Tiberius, as well as Sejanus, was con- 
fidered, by the Senate, as not lefs the director of every thing—and— 
that he alfo would not go to Rome.—Which, furely, feems to imply 
further that fomething of no common import muft have then happened 
at Rome—and, fomething, as Tacitus fays, iv. 74, like a molt ex¬ 
traordinary commotion.—And what, but the preaching of Chrilt, 
could have then happened to caufe fuch dillra&ion ? 

Other writers confirm what Tacitus here fays of this matter. 

. * I 

Philo fays, that Tiberius, a little before the death of Sejanus, at 

his infiigation, or—as Jofephus fays, at the complaint of Saturninus, 

( 

againfi the pretended doctors, expelled the Jews from Rome. 

Suetonius fays, of Tiberius, iii. 66, that he, kept Sejanus at Capreae 
till jufi before he was conful, and that he at Iafi effe&ed his lubver- 
lion (who, he had before faid chapter 55, was one of his privy coun¬ 
sellors,) by artifice and cunning—afiu et dolo fubvertit—and that 
feveral others of his privy counfellors were then furviying. 

✓ 

Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 621, D. that Tiberius was praifed, in the 15th 
year of .his reign, for not neglecting public bufinefs— wxnr?? rov Tt£t?w 

1 1 

Z 


/ 


✓ 


114 





\ 

/ 

/ /- 

Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Capreee , 

iTrounaotvres on rys rcov koivujv ^loocyareus aSs Tore ccTteayero,-— And, again, 
in the next page, C., that many deputies were, in the next year, fent, 
by the Senate, to him, and, among the reft, Gallus.—And, again, 

1 . 59, p. 643, C., that he would never fuffer others to govern him in 
the fame manner as Caius did. — T t£epio$ [xev yxp otvros re ypx s Katl vwfsTX's 
rots xXXois r npos yz to uvth jSaXri^x efflyTo. 

Paterculus fajs, ii. 127, 128, that Sejanus was, till the xvi year of 
Tiberius, nothing more than an afliftant.—C. 127, he fays—fingu- 
larem principalium onerum adjutorem in omnia habuit atque habet. 

C. 128, he fays—ad juvanda vero onera principis, Sejanum protulit. 

* 

Paterculus alfo defcribes him as being, at that time, very faithful and 
unafliiming—ipfum vero laboris ac fidei capaciflimum—nihil fibi vin- 
dicantem. 

Jofephus fays, A. xviii. 4, S, that Tiberius,‘in that year, gave orders 
for every thing. 

V. Maximus fays, ix. 11, that Sejanus attempted to take the reins 
of government from Tiberius by force—Tu videlicet efferatze barbarize 
immanitate truculentior habenas romani imperii, quas princeps, 
parenfque nofter falutari dextera continet, capere potuifti? 

Seneca, Confol. ad Marciam xxii, feems to intimate the fame thing 
*—Sejanum in cervices noftros nec imponi quidem fed afcendere. 

Now as cotemporary and latter writers, friends and foes, with one 
confent, tell us that Tiberius diu iiot omit to tranfaft public buftnefs 
while at Capreae, why does Tacitus, fo confidently tell us that moft 
writers had left it on record that Tiberius had been prevailed on by 
Sejanus to leave Rome and the management of every thing to him. 

Another reafon which, Tacitus fays, fome /terfons aftigned for his 
retirement was, a confcioufnefs of his perfonal defeats—Erant qui ere- 


I 


115 


Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprete. 

derent in fene&ute quoque corporis habitum pudori fuifie—quippe, 
fays he, (and it particularly deferves to be noticed, becaufe it Teems to 
intimate that he admitted that it might, after all, be the true reafon) 
—praegrandis illi et incurva proceritas, nudus capiilo vertex, ulcerofa 
facies et plerumquc medicaminibus interftin&a.—And, as a fort of 
proof, he adds—et Rhodi fecreto, vitare coetus, recondere voluptates 
infuerat.—But how is this at all reconcileable with what Paterculus 
and Suetonius fay of him r—Paterculus fays, ii. 94—Tiberius Clau¬ 
dius Nero juvenis genere, forma, celfitudine corporis inftru&ifiimus.— 
Again, chapter 97, he fays—Nam pulchritudo corporis (Drufi. fcil.) 
proxima fraternce.—Suetonius, we find, agrees with Paterculus on this 
point, and, chap. 68, defcribes his perfon, fo particularly, that any one 
may fancy his figure to have been very majeftic—Corpore fuit amplo 
atque robufto: ftatura quae juftam excederet.—-Latus ab humeris ct 
pe&ore: caeteris quoque membris ufque ad imos pedes a^qualis ct 
congruens, Sec.—And is this a form for any man of 70, who had 
never experienced any ill health, to be afhamed of?—Suetonius fays 
this of his perfon-—-he next proceeds to defcribe his countenance and 
his features—Colore erat candido, capiilo pone occipitium fummif- 
fiore, ut cervicem etiam obtegeret: quod gentile in illo videbatur.— 
Facie honefta, in qua tamen crebri et fubtiles tumores cum pnegran- 
dibus oculis, &c.—Laftly, he fpeaks of his mien and manner of con- 
verfation—Incedebat cervice rigida et obftipa et addu&o fere vultu, 
plerumque tacitus. 

Such is the account which Paterculus and Suetonius give of the 
perfon of this moil excellent monarch.—How different from that of 
Tacitus. 


Z 2 


/ 



116 


\ 

Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprea. 

But had his perfonal defeats been as remarkable, as Tacitus would 
have it thought, yet why fhould we be expected to believe that any 
veteran defpot, and efpecially one who was fo cruel as Tacitus re- 
prefents this to have been, would have been fo fond of concealing 
them from the eye of the world as to leave the feat of his government 
for that purpofe ?—Does not his public appearance in Campania, at 

i 

leaft, at the dedication of the temples, in two of the moil populous 
towns in that diftrift, fhew the futility of that fuppofition ?—Had the 
people of Rome the leaft fufpicion that fuch was his motive, would 
they, either when the Amphitheatre, atFidenae, fell, or when a great 
part of Rome was burnt, have importuned him to return, and, as 

j 

Suetonius fays, from Caprea? ?—And would he, if that had been the 
cafe, have fo readily returned to aflift the fufferers, and have made 
himfelf fo very acceffible to people of all ranks?—Or would the Senate, 
&c. have prefumed to requeft him to return to Rome—-and, to go to 
the coaft of Campania, for the purpofe of importuning him to favor 
them with an interview ?—This however Tacitus himfelf fays, iv. 74, 
they did.—Dion alfo fays, that A. Callus, the year after, defired to 
be one of the delegates whom the Senate fent to him. Juvenal fpeaks 
of his being furrounded by a company of Chaldceans.—Jofephus fays, 
that Agrippa fpent two or three years with him at Caprea?, and that 
he went to Tufculanum.—And laftly, Suetonius fays, chapter 72, 
that he was, juft before his death, prefent at the military fports at 
Circeii, and, in the fame chapter, that he ufed to fee much com¬ 
pany. 

The Icijl reafon which Tacitus fays was aiftgned for his leaving 
Rome, is this—that he could not bear the thought of his mother’s 
ufurping a paramount authority in the direction of public affairs, 
and, that he could not make her defift—nec depellere pole- 


117 


Why Tiberius left Rome , ancl why he went to Caprece. 

rat.*—This, Tacitus obferves, he had by tradition —that is—by com¬ 
mon report.—But how is it that common report appears to have con¬ 
tradicted that of moft writers?— Mojl records , Tacitus, we have feen, 
informs us, faid that the caufe of his retirement was the artifice of Seja- 
nus.—And now he fays, that tradition faid that the caufe of it was the 
intolerable arrogance of his mother, whofe age was, as he himfelf ob- 
ferved of it, iv. 8, three or four years before, extreme—that is—as Dion 
fays, 1 . 58, p. 621, C., at the time when her foil retired, 83.—If this 
lafl be the true caufe, the hril cannot have been the true caufe, for this 
reafon as well as for that before affigned by him—viz—that Tiberius 
remained at Capreae fix years after the death of Sejanus—unlefs he 
would have us to think that Sejanus could do no more under Livia, 
than he could under Tiberius, which, furely, would feem to imply 
that there was no great occafion for contriving to get Tiberius out of 
the way—that he, however, could do no more under Livia than under 

Tiberius—he, we find, v. 4, denies—for he there fays—Neque Seja- 

/ \ 

nus audebat au&oritati parentis anteire.—And this refpe&ful diflance, 
he, we find, fays, Sejanus obferved till the death of Livia, or two 
years after Tiberius feceded. 

But let us examine this lafl reafon which Tacitus fays tradition 
affigned for the feceffion of Tiberius, independently of the channel 
through which he derived it. 

* Dion who, 1. 5T, p. 610, B., admits that tradition, said that Tiberias retired 
to Caprecv, on account of some disagreement with his mother, then, at least, 
84, is so far from saying that she directed every thing, that he, immediately 
before, says, that Tiberius would not suffer her to do any one thing— 
y.xt rtXos TU)V //.tv nxvrxTrx'rtv xvryv xnnXhx^Y. —And, 1. 58, p. 621, D., 

he says_ x.xtwep rov Ti&piov ewxivsaxvrss, on rr/f rwv koiwy Sioixso-eus ah tote 

\ 


\ 


X, 


118 


\ 


Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Caprcw. 

Did not Tacitus fee that the only argument which he produced 

againfl the fuppofition that Sejanus contrived to get Tiberius out of 

the way, is, when applied to the prefent cafe, a little more forcible ? 

If his continuance at Capreae more than five years after the death of 

Sejanus be any thing like a proof that Sejanus was not the caufe of his 

retiring, why fhould not his continuance there more than nine years 

after the death of his mother be confidered as fomething like a ftronger 

proof that he did not remove from Rome on her account?—This con- 

fideration Tacitus has unaccountably contrived to overlook.—That 

Tacitus himfelf could not have believed this pretended tradition is 

very clear from what he fays of the occurrences which happened 

during the two or three years between his feceilion and the death of 

his mother.—For, firfl he fays, that the people of Rome complained 

in their diftrefs of his having left them—feralemque annum ferebant, 

et ominibus adverfis fufceptum principi conlilium abfentia?—which, 

furely, feems to imply that the feceflion of Tiberius was voluntary— 

as Tacitus himfelf alferts, iv. 58—libens patria careret—though, by 

the remark which he fubjoins, he himfelf feems to have thought that 

it was merely accidental.—He alfo fays, that both the Senate and 

people thanked him for his beneficence on that occafion.—Again, he 

tells us, that the Senate, in the cafe of Varus, did not think of con- 

fulting Livia how to proceed, but agreed to wait the return of Tibe - 

^ * 

rius—and, becaufe he was, the only fuffuge, for the time, from the 
impending evils.—Again, he complains of his not having paid the 
leafl attention to the revolt of the Frifii, which, furely, implies that 
he confidered him as flill the dire&or of military proceedings.— 
Laflly, he fays, that the Senate petitioned him, again and again, to 
return, before they went, in a body, to wait on him, on the coaft of 
Campania, for the purpofe of requeuing an interview. 


119 


*>. » 

Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Caprcce. 

In fliort—from what Tacitus fays of this matter, it appears almoft 
incredible that there could have been fucli a tradition. 

Let us now proceed to enquire what Suetonius fays was the caufe 
of his retiring from Rome. 

He, chapter 39, fays, politively, that the caufe of his going into 
Campania was the lofs of his fons—Sed orbatus utroque filio fecefliun 
Campanile petiit.—The lafh of whom—viz—Drufus, it fhould be ob- 
ferved, died three years before, and therefore fome may be inclined 
to think it ftrange that his grief for the lofs of him fhould have con¬ 
tinued fo long: but to thofe who know what Jofephus fays, of his 
grief for the lofs of his fon, it cannot appear fo.—Again, he fays, 51, 
not as Tacitus does, that it was generally thought that his difagree- 
ment with his fuperannuatcd mother was the chief caufe of it, but, 
that fome might think fo—ut quidam putent inter cauftas feceffus hanc 
ei vel prcecipuam fuifle—but, if he grieved fo much and fo long for 
the lofs of his only .fon, can it be likely that he would difagree with 
his fuperannuated mother?—But does he agree with Tacitus as to the 
caufe of their difagreement ?—By no means. So far is he from faying 
that Li via ever obtained fuch an afcendancy over her fon, as to take 
from him the management of public concerns, that he, on the con¬ 
trary, fays, c. 50, that Tiberius permitted her to do fcarcely any thing 
at all—and that he ufed to tell her often to mind her own concerns, 
and to leave Rate matters alone.—How then can Livia be fuppofed 
to have forced him, by her interference, to retire?—Would not any 
one be inclined to fuppofe from this that he managed every thing 
moft arbitrarily, and that fhe had the greateft reafon to retire ?— 
Suetonius proceeds, in the next chapter, to point out the very inftance, 
which, it was pretended—ut ferunt—caufed the breach between them 
—Dehinc ad fimultatem ufque procsRit, hac, ut ferunt, de cauRa— 


120 


Why Tiberias left Rome , ancl 'why he went to Caprece. 

fcil.—file wifhed to have a certain libertine made a judge, and, there¬ 
fore, often entreated her fon—inftabat ftepius—to grant her requeft—• 
at laft, he, on condition that a memorandum fhould be entered in 
the roll, oppofite the perfon’s name, purporting that his mother had 
forced him to confent, granted her requeft.—Whether it was accor¬ 
dingly done, Suetonius does not fay—but this he fays, that file was 
fo much offended at this reply, that file inftantly went to her clofet 

4 

and produced certain papers of Auguftus, which file had always kept 
concealed, complaining of his morofenefs and intolerance.—This, 
fays Suetonius, he took fo much amifs, that, as fome may think—ut 
quidam putent—it was the chief caufe, not of Livia’s retiring from 
court, but of his retiring from Rome. 

So contradi&ory is the evidence of Tacitus and Suetonius concern-* 
ing the interference of Livia in political matters.—Let us proceed to 
enquire with whom Paterculus feems to agree. 

Paterculus, ii. 127, fays, of the government of Tiberius till the 
16th year of his reign, that Sejanus was and is the fingular afliftant of 
all his princely burdens—fingularem principalium onerum adjutorem 
in omnia habuit atque habet.—And of Livia he fays, chapter 130— 
Cujus temporis aegritudinem auxit amifia mater eminentiflima, et per 
omnia Deis quam hominibus, fimilior femina; cujus Jiotentiam nemt 
fenjit , nifi aut levatione periculi aut accefiione dignitatis. 

In fhort—to reprefent the greateft general that ever commanded an 
army, who militated in almoft every part of the empire, and who 
never fuffered a defeat, who, when he fucceeded Auguftus, took care, 
as Tacitus fays, i. 7, to have it underftood that lie was not indebted 
either to him or to his mother for his advancement, but only to the 
/ree choice of the Roman people, who, at the very beginning of his 



i2i 


Why Tiberius left Rome, and why lie went to CapTete . 

reign, refufed her, as Tacitus fays, i. 14, the honor of a lingle liCtor, 
and aiterwards the titles which the Senate voted her,* who, during 
twelve years, would not fufFer her to interfere in any political matter, 
and when the only requefted him to make a certain perfon a judge, 
would not, for a long time, confent, and then only on condition that 
—extorted by Livia —was entered in the margin of the roll oppofite 
his name—to reprefent fuch an one as driven from the feat of his 
governiilent, when he was near 70 years of age, by his mother, who 
was then not lefs than 84, is fuch a piece of abfurdity, as could not 
be expe&ed from any hiftorian—not even from one who wrote for the 
foie purpofe of calumniating the belt of characters. 

We have now paid due attention to each of thofe four reafons 
aligned by this, as he has been, by fuppofed fcavans, ftyled, prince 
of hiftorians, for the feceflion of this prince of princes, and we have 
found every one of them to be fuch as no honeft hiftorian would have 

J 

thought of aftigning.—The firfi, which, he himfelf fays, mojl writers 
confidered as the true one, he himfelf rejeCts, and, for a very good 
reafon.—And the laft which he mentions as traditional he therefore 
ought a fortiori to rejeCt.—The fecond evidently conftfts of two con- 
tradiCtory parts.—And the third is flatly contradicted not only by 
Paterculus and Suetonius but even by Tacitus himfelf. 

Let us then endeavour to difeover a reafon that has, at leaft, the 
appearance of a probability. 

* If all this was true, why do we read of the following legend and inscrip¬ 
tion :— 

Tristunus T. 1, p. 123, JVLIA. AVGUSTA. GENETRIX. ORBIS. 

G ruler, p. ccxxxiv. 2, JULI/E. AY r G. DIVl. F. MATRI. TI. CiESAR-IS. 

AUG. PRIXCIPIS. ET. C0NSEItVATORIS. 

» > 

\ 

A a 


122 


i 


Why Tiberius left Borne , and why lie went to Caprea. 

Suetonius, we have obferved, fays, iii. 39? that after T iberius had 
loft his two fons, Germanicus and Drufus, (and, he, it feems, might 
have faid, as Tacitus has faid, iv. 15? after he had alfo loft one of 
the twin fons of Drufus-—and moreover, his old friends Lucilius 
Longus, Quirinus, and Cn. Lentulus—the former of whom died u. c. 
776, Tib. 10, and the latter 77S, Tib. 12,) he fought retirement in 
Campania.—Before he left Rome, he, as both of thcfe hiftorians fay, 
publifhed an cdift, forbidding any one, as Tacitus fays, to diftuib Lis 
quiet —or, as Suetonius fays, to falute him. —And he not only pub- 
lifhed an edi£t for the above mentioned purpofe, but he, as they both 
fay too, ftationed guards* to prevent the people of the feveral towns 
through which he intended to pafs from coming near him, which 
(by the bye) feems pretty clearly to intimate that he expected from 
them no little attention, notwithftanding the edi£t—if not that he was 
unwell, either in body or mind.—In body, Suetonius tells us, iii. 68, 
he never was unwell.—Was then his mind difordered ?—If it was, what 

but grief for the lofs of relatives and friends could have made him 

— » • 

take this fiercgrination , for fo Suetonius calls it.—And that it was fo 
appears from what Tacitus lays, iv. 58, of his attendants—viz—that 

they were few, and, that they were men of learning and fele&ed for 

• . ✓ 

the fake of their converfation—quorum fermonibus levaretur—among 
whom, he fays, was Cocceius Nerva, who, he alfo fays, vi. 26, was 
the conftant companion of the prince, and, w 7 ell fkilled in all law, 
human and divine —continues Principis, omnis divini humanique juris 
feiens.—With this felefl learned party he ufed fometimes to amufe 
himfelf in grottos—negle&ing to dedicate the temples till nearly the 
fend of the following year—viz—780, or the beginning of his 14th 

* If the people thought he was so very vicious and tyrannical, and, that he 
would die soon, what necessity could there have been either for the edict or 
for the guards to keep people from paying their respects to him? 


123 


Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Caprea. 

year.—In the courfe of which year of Rome three remarkable events, 
as Tacitus fays, happened—viz—the fall of the Amphitheatre at 
Fidenae—the fire on Mount Coelius—and, the profecution of V. Quinc- 
tilius, a relative of Caffar.—But did thofe three events really happen 
before Tiberius went to Capreae ?—Does not Suetonius tell us ex- 
prelTly that the firll of thofe events happened after he went thither?— 
And mud not the other two of courfe?—However by what this writer 
fays of his extremely kind behavior towards the didreffed lufferers at x 
Fidenae—and, by what the other fays, of the Senate having agreed to 
defer pafling fentence on V. Quindilius till he fhould return, his 
malady, whatever it was, feems, for the prefent, to have left him: 
but, fays Tacitus, v. 4, and Paterculus, in the end of his hidory, a 
relaple foon followed, and his diforder was much w T orfe than before. 

Grief then for the lofs of his only fon and of two or three very old 
friends feems to have been the only caufe of his retiring from Rome 
and remaining fo long in Campania—that is—from the year 779 to 
nearly the end of 780, if not till 781, in which lad mentioned year, 
he was 70, and Chrjd was, rather early in that year, fird preached at 

i 

Rome.—If then grief was his complaint, and it was, when the difader 
at Fidenae happened, fo far abated that the Senate began to exped his 
return when V. Quindilius, his kinfman, w T as accufed, and in hopes 
that he would counterad the then eoormoudy increadng prevalence 
of accufers, why did he, indead of returning, withdraw to Capreae, 
and though requeded, by the Senate, again and again, to return, in 
order to counterad the caufe of the internal alarm, refufe to comply 
with their requeds, and even to confent to an interview with them on 
the coad of Campania?—In that year, we have feen, Chrid differed, 
and, as Clemens, of Rome, fays, in the fpring of that year his faitU 

A a 2 


/ # 




I 


124 


Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprece. 

began to be preached at Rome, and, as both Tacitus and Tertullian 
fay, under the patronage of Tiberius, and, as the fame two writers 
fay, great oppofition was made to it, and, of courfe to Tiberius, both 
by a majority of the Senate and of the people—how, then as all this 
happened in the courfe of the year 781, are we to be fure that Tiberius 
may not have retired for perfonal fafety ?—Of this, at lead, we feem 
to be pretty well allured, and even by Tacitus, that Tiberius, who 
ufed, without any attendant, to enter the Senate, then, for the firft 
time, complained to the fathers, by letter, that his life was in danger 
—that he fufpe&ed the plots of his enemies, and would not go, as 
ufual, to the Senate, not even with a guard, nor be feen by them on 
the oppofitc coad, and, that fome of them, from that time, took the 
liberty to fpeak difrefpe&fully of him, even in the Senate, and others, 
among whom were even condemned perfons, ufed to write any thing, 
however fcurrilous, againd him, and to publifh it in the mod 
frequented places, and not only of all this do we feem to be allured, 
but of this alfo, that the praflice of acculing perfons, for what we 
know not, unlefs it were for not worfhipping Tiberius, began then to 
be in fafhion, and that Tiberius refuted the honors voted, by the 
Senate, to his mother—ni cceledis religio decerneretur. 

How much more credible the preceding mode of accounting for hi$ 
fecelbon from Rome is, than either of thofe mentioned by Tacitus, mud 
appear to every one.—And how much more credible this other mode 
of accounting for his retiring to Capreae is, than that of Suetonius, 
may be made to appear from what Tacitus fays of fome of the events 
of the two following years—viz —781, 782—A. iv. 68, he tells us 
how a fcheme was laid, by four candidates for the confulfhip, and 
therefore, we prefume, fenatorials, to enfna^e Titius Sabinus, u 
knight, who was notorious for his attachment to the family of Ger- 
manicus, and for his difafFe£tion to Tiberius, and who had, three 


125 


Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprea. 

years before, been profecuted by Sejanus, for the fame offence, when 
his trial was, for fome unknown reafon, put off.—Chap. 69, he fays, 
how one of them pretended to pity the family of Germanicus, and, 
by that means, got him to fpeak difrefpe&fully of Tiberius and 
Sejanus, while the others overheard every word that he faid.—Of this 
they immediately fent off an account to Tiberius, who, it fhould be 
obferved, is faid, by all, to have difregarded fuch reports, and had, 
but the year before, been confidered, by the Senate, as the only 
fuffuge in fuch hard cafes, and was then at Capreae, driven from the 
management of public affairs by Sejanus or his mother.—And, flrange 
to relate, he alfo tells us, that, though Sabinus was then almofl the 
only ffaunch friend of the family of Germanicus,-inconceivable horror 

X 

feized all ranks of people at Rome, as if the cafe of Sabinus, a knight, 
might be every man’s own cafe:—“The city, fays Tacitus, was never 
feized with greater dread; one neighbour accufed another, fo that 
reports, known and unknown, began to be avoided, nay even dumb 
and inanimate things, roofs and walls, occafioned dread and circum- 
fpedtion.”—-Non alias magis anxia et pavens civitas, egens ( agens?) 
adverfum proximos, eongreffus, colloquia, notse ignotneque aurcs 
(aura: P) vitari; etiam muta atque inanima, teftum et parietes cir- 
cumfpeflabantur.—But if Rich were the accufers and fuch was their 
motive, and fuch the crime which they aliedged againfl Sabinus—* 
what reafon had the commonalty of Rome to be alarmed left a fimilar 
accufation might be brought againfl any of them?—Why fhould they 
have accufed one another?—But did the Senate, on this evidence alone, 
proceed to pafs fentence on Sabinus ?—In the next chapter, 70, Taci¬ 
tus proceeds to fay, that Tiberius himfelf, magnanimous and benevo¬ 
lent, as he is faid to have been, let loofe fome of the mofl corrupt of 
the libertines againfl Sabinus, then in prifon—that Sabinus was tried 


/ 


126 ' 

: - , '* • ^ j ■ . > 

Why Tiberius left Rome , a/zcZ why he went to Caprece , 

before the Senate, condemned, and, contrary to the ediCt of Tiberius, 
immediately executed—and, as he was on the way to the place of 
execution, every body, through fear, fled from the light—the llreets 
and public places were deferted—and, that fome of thofe who had 
fled, returned to their occupations again, afraid of being punifhed for 
having ihewn ligns of fear—quo intendilfet oculos, quo verba acci- 
derent, fuga, valtitas: deferi itinera, fora: et quidam regrediebantur, 
oftentabantque fe rurfum, id ipfum paventes, quod timuillent.—And, 
laftly, Tacitus fays, that Tiberius returned thanks to the Senate for 
having put to death a perfon hoftile to the Jiate. —Tiberius, though, as 
Tacitus himfelf fays, v. 2, habitually placid , though, as Juvenal fays, 
x. 75, fecure in his old age , though, as Suetonius fays, iii. 59, ha/i/iy 
in himfelf, at the fame time, fays Tacitus, added—that his life was 
in danger—trepidam libi vitam—and that he fufpeCted the plots of 
his enemies—fufpeCtas inimicorum inlidias—no doubt, favs he, mean¬ 
ing Agrippina and Nero.—And in this conjecture, he feems to be 
fupported by Paterculus, ii. 130, who fays—Quod ex nuru, quod ex 
nepote, dolere, indignari, erubefeere coaCtus ell ?—And immediately 

fubjoins—Cujus temporis aegritudinem auxit amifla mater, &c. 

\ 

This then is the Itrange account which Tacitus has given us, in 

thofe three chapters, of the accufation, trial, condemnation, and im- 

* ■ 

mediate execution of Titius Sabinus.—An account which is liable to 

1 ’ ’ t '*. • , » ' y f j 

various and great objections. Let us proceed to conlider fome of the 
chief. 

• j- ' ■. : •, ; .. , ) ' 

Titius Sabinus had, three years before, fays Tacitus, iv. iS, been 
attacked by Sejanus, for having been concerned with C. Suilius, in 

/ v’ / \\ ^ . 

endeavouring to raife a dilturbance in favor of the family of Germa- 
nicus.—But though attacked, he was not, for fome unaccountable- 
teafon, then tried—if he was then imprifoned, he appears to have been 


I 


127 




\ 


! 

Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he xvent to Caprea. 

fet at liberty again, and probably without fecurity For his future good 
behaviour. Suilius, however, was tried, and fearing the iffue, put an 
end to himfelf.—Sabinus, regardlefs of the lenity which he had, fo lately 

' i 

experienced, permitted himfelf to be decoyed into a repetition of his 
ofFence, and, not only fo, but an aggravation of it, by fpeaking againft 
Tiberius, and, what is flill more furprifing, by one whom he could not 
but have known to be a creature of Sejanus—and, at a time too, 
when Tiberius was either driven from the feat of his government—or, 
obliged to retire by grief, and when he had, but the year before, or, 
it may have been but the fame year, endeared himfelf to all ranks of 
people by his benevolence and beneficence on two moft extraordinary 

/ 

-occafions.—And who, does Tacitus fay, were his accufers ?—fcil.— 
four candidates for the enfuing confulate, who, to obtain their obje£f, 
took this flep to ingratiate themfelves, not with either Livia or Tibe¬ 
rius, but with Sejanus.—How four competitors, for an office that was 
difcharged only by tw T o, fliould have entered into fuch a confpiracy 
againft Sabinus, Tacitus has forgot to tell us.—Certain it is, however, 
that not one of the four obtained the expected reward for his raoft 
difgraceful fervice.—On their information, Sabinus was, to the in¬ 
conceivable confternation of the whole city, dragged away to prifon— 
and an account of the whole proceeding was fent away to Tiberius, 
then at Capreae.—Tiberius, then, as if the evidence of thofe fenators 
might be fufpetted, contrived, after he was in prifon, to fet fome of 
the freedmen againft him, in order, it fliould feem, to do the work, 
which the others had begun under Sejanus, the more completely, and 
to crown the report, T iberius, fays Tacitus, demanded vengeance— 
ultionemque baud obfcure pofcebat—and, by fo doing, prejudged 
the whole matter himfelf.—The Senate, in obedience to the demand 
of Tiberius, immediately proceeded to pafs fentence on him, and, in 


/ 


Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprea . 

defiance of his former edict, (made in a fimilar cafe fix or feven years 
before, commanding them to allow the comdemned perfons ten days’ 
refoite,) immediately executed him—to the Hill greater conflernation 
of all Rome.—Tiberius, continues he, returned thanks to the Senate, 
by letter, for having punilhed a man hojtile to the Jlate —but of the 
principals, Agrippa and Nero, he, fays Tacitus, took no notice, at 
leaft, by name, though he fufpe£led them of a defign upon his life. 

In this inftance, then, we find that fenators themfelves fometimes 
became accufers, and even of the friends of the family of Germanicus, 
and, that the Senate, even in fuch a cafe, feconded their views, and 
were entirely fubfervient to the will of Tiberius and received his 
thanks for it—and, we alfo find, that the citizens were imprefled with 
unfpeakable abhorrence at the atrocity of the deed, fuppofing that the 
cafe of this knight might be that of every one among!! them.—But 
how could they have been fearful of this, unlefs they were confcious 
to themfelves that they were all equally attached to the family of 
Germanicus, and Agrippina and Nero had then encouraged them to 
revolt—which furely would imply that they had too foon forgotten 
their late difafters at Fidenae and at Rome. But how long did the 
Senate continue fo fubfervient to the will of Tiberius—and—fo oppo- 
fite to the views of Agrippina?—And, why, as they were fo very 
obfequious to his will, even in oppofition to the hopes of Agrippina 
and Nero, fnould he have faid that his life was in danger ?—And 
that he was afraid of the plots of his enemies ?—What plots or what 
enemies could he have meant?—How long had his enemies been 
plotting again!! him—and—how long did they continue to do fo ? 

In the next chapter—viz—71, Tacitus proceeds to fay, that Afinius 
Gallus, a brother in-law of Agrippina, pretended to be fo very igno¬ 
rant of the perfons meant by Tiberius, (though, as Tacitus fays. 


129 

« t I ’ 4 • . •* 4 - 

Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Caprece. 

every body elfe had no doubt that they were Agrippina and Nero,) 
that he propofed, in the Senate, to petition the prince to difclofe the 
caufe of his fear, and, in order to have it removed.—But if it was, as 
Tacitus fays, generally underflood that Tiberius meant Agrippina and 
Nero—and—as he fays too, that Tiberius could not bear the thought 
of having his thoughts known, was there not great danger in prefling 
him to difclofe them?—Was then Afinius Gallus the moll likely of 
all men to have made the propofal to the Senate?—But, faysTacitus> 
his propofal was overruled by Sejanus, on the fcore that the prince 
did not like to reveal his thoughts.—And why then, it may furely be 
afked, did he, while refiding at Caprer, complain that his life was 
in danger ?—That he feared the plots of his enemies?—What enemies 
could he, who had but juft before fo endeared himfelf to every body, 
have had?—Or what plots could be formed againft his life, while he 
was refiding at Capreae ?—Or againft his government, who, bv his 

f* ‘ ’ J . ■ r- k \ ; 

own account, had then no government?—Or rather, had fo much 
intereft with the Senate as to prevail on them to execute one of the 
moft ftaunch and zealous friends of the family of Germanicus, merely 
for his attachment to them.—Does not Tacitus then appear to have 
made a very incomprehenfible report of this whole affair ? 

Let us next proceed to attend to one occurrence more, which,. 
Tacitus fays, began to take place foon after the execution ofSabinus* 
and before the year was expired—and which occurrence was, he alfo 
fays, incomparably more terrific than the revolt of a warlike people., 
and, of courfe, than the executiqn of Sabinus. 

His account of this internal confirmation, for that is the name he 
gives this political phenomenon, he introduces with faying that the 

Senate, at a time when a warlike people were incroaching ou the 

t > 

* ' + s ' 

Bh 


I 


130 


i 


\ 


Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprece. 

S 1 » 

borders of the empire, regardlefs of that difgrace, were totally occu¬ 
pied about deviling a method to obviate it—and, that the only thing 
they could think of, as likely to accomplifh their purpofe, was adula¬ 
tion—Cui remedium adulatione quaerebatur.—A Rrange application 
for fo great a political diforder!—But to whom, does he fay, this 
adulation was to be paid?—by whom—and—how?—foil.—to Tibe¬ 
rius and Sejanus—by the Senate—and—by erecting altars to clemency 
and amity around the Ratues of Tiberius and Sejanus—ita quan- 
quam diverfis fuper rebus confularentur, aram Clementiae, aram 
Amicitiae, effigiefque circum Caefaris et Sejani eenfuere.—But how 
could they think that adulation of any kind, efpecially of a religious 

nature, was likely to be the means of conciliating Tiberius to co- 

, ♦ 

operate in remedying this evil ?—Did they not know that he hated 
adulation of every kind, and efpecially fuch as was of a religious 
nature?—That he had forbidden that by edi£t ?—Does not this mode 
then of adulating him imply fomething of a very unaccountable 
nature ?—However, whether they did, by this fort of adulation, in¬ 
tend to pleafe him, or, whether they did not, does it not feem to 
imply that they confidered Tiberius as the caufe of this fudden alarm, 

if not, that he was able to remove it and would not ?—But what 

* 

political evil could he, who had been driven from Rome by his mother, 
and was then redding at Capreae, and afraid that his enemies had a 
defign on his life, have introduced at Rome?—Would he, who, as 
Suetonius fays, iii. 37, had moR grievoufly fupprefied fome popular 
tumults, not only at Rome but throughout Italy, and taken great care 
that they fhould never happen again—Populares tumultus exortos 
graviffime coercuit; et ne orirentur fedulo cavit.—And, as he feems 
to have intimated immediately before, by Rationing the praRoiiajl 
guards at Rome.—And who, as Tacitus fays, A. iv. 64, but the year 
before had received the thanks of the Senate and of all ranks of the 


I 


131 

* 

" > • • < : • ‘ • 4 , , \ \ , • v. * . u t * ; 

Why Tiberius left Rome , and why he went to Caprea. 

people'of Rome for his beneficence to them, have thought of diflurb- 
ing them fo inconceivably by the introduction of any evil ?—That he 
did, at fome time of his reign, by great artifice, introduce what 
Tacitus is pleafed to call a mofl grievous evil—exitium—he, and he 
alone, we find, allures us, A. i. 73, and, as we have already feen, 
p. 40,* after the 13th year of his reign.—Was then the introduction of 
this mofl grievous evil the caufe of this amazing internal confterna- 
tion ?—If it was, we have feen that we have no little reafon to think 
the introduction of the execrable fuperflition—alias—of the Chriftian 
religion, was the caufe of all of it. And, confequently, that it may alfo 
have been the caufe of his retiring to Capreae, as, it feems, his life 
muft have been in danger from the enemies of the Chriftian religion— 
if not of its being faid that the people were fo terrified at the execution 
of Sabinus—and—of its being alfo faid that he turned the mofl worth- 
lefs of the freedmen againfl him.—That this was really the faCt why 
fhould we not infer, even from what, we have already feen, Tacitus 
•fays of this internal dread, and flill more from what he fays in the 
fequel?—Tacitus proceeds to fay that the Senate repeatedly impor¬ 
tuned them to fhew themfelves—crebrifque precibus efflagitabant 
vifendi fui copiam facerent—with this repeated requefl they would not 
comply—Non ill! tamen in urbem aut propinqua urbi digrefli funt.— 
How differently did he behave only a few months before, towards 
the fufferers at Fidenae and towards thofe on Mount Coelius! On the 

former occafion, he, as Suetonius fays, went, at the requefl of the 

* _ 

people, from Caprea? injiantly , and made himfelf acceffible to all.—■ 
But now he would not comply with the repeated prayers of the Senate, 
who, inflead of beging that he would order out the praetorian troops, 

* Orig. Quot. 

B b 2 

I ' " ’ : 


A 


132 


Why Tiberius left Rome, and why he went to Capreie. 

went, with the knights and great part of the commonalty, while Rome 
was in the greateft confufion, to the coaft of Campania, and, merely, 
as Tacitus pretends, to get a light of them.—This, however, Tibe¬ 
rius himfelf took care not to indulge them with, and, no doubt, for 
fear of any attempt on his life.—This, fays Tacitus, made them re* 
turn in trepidation.—Some, fubjoins he, a little cheered at their better 
reception, on their return foon met with a grievous exit. 


4 ^ .... '• 

f - V. \ 

* , j". J . — 





133 





1 







CHAPTER VIII. 


Why Tiberias did not see his dying mother . 

AND 

Whether she refused honors ne — or — ni y 8$c. 

JPaCITUS, v< i, fays, that Livia died u. c. 782—or—in the 
7 ill year of Tiberius.—-Now if fhe died in that year, and her fon was 
then in his 71ft, Hie muft have been, at her death, not as Pliny fays, 
xiv. 6, 82 years old, but, as Dion fays, I. Iviii, p. 621, C , at leaft 86 
—*£ xai oyoo-nxoirtx im 'Tacitus had, it fhould be obferved, 

before faid, A. iv. 8, where he is fpeaking of the events of u. c. 776, 
that her age was, in that year, extreme. 

During her illnefs, Tiberius, fays Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion, 
aever faw her, and, when fhe was dead, did not attend her funeral, 
neither, fay they, would he permit her body to be confecrated.—All 
this, they fuppofe, proceeded trom difrefpeft.— 1 acitus fays, that he, 
though juft before afraid that his life was in danger, made no change, 
all the time fhe was ill, in his ufual amenity—and—that he, at her 
death, though inattentiyfc tq the revolt, of the Frifii, told, the Senate 





131 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother • 

/ 

that the prefture of public bufinefs was fo great that he could not 
attend.*—Let us proceed to enquire why he was fo inattentive to her 
in her laft moments and after her death. 

If he was, as Tacitus, we have feen, in the laft chapter, feems to 
fay, 1. 72, fo very early on fuch notorioufly bad terms with her as to 
have excited the obloquy of fatyrifts, it furely cannot be g, matter of 
furprize that he paid no attention to her in her laft illnefs.—But Taci¬ 
tus, we have difcovered, could not have meant to fay fo.—Indeed, if 
lie had meant to fay fo, he would be found, by what he fays after¬ 
wards, in the following books, to appear to contradict himfelf.—For, 
ii. 34, he fays, that Tiberius, to [lleafe his mother , went to the Senate, 
to plead the caufe of her favorite Urgulania, who had refufed to at¬ 
tend the fummons of Pifo, the praefeCt of the city, and had been pro- 

' ' 1 

tested, by Livia, in her contumacy—Tiberius indulgere matri civile 
ratus, &c.—And again, in three or four places of the third book, he 

r ' * * , \ 

fays enough to induce us to fuppofe that Tiberius could not have 
difagreed with his mother fo early as to have their difagreement pub¬ 
licly known in the courfe of the year after he was made emperor, if 
not enough to convince us that their concord muft have been lincere 
till a year or two after the death of Germanicus.—In the 3d chapter, 
he fays, that both Tiberius and his mother did not attend the funeral 
of Germanicus, and poflibly, as he hints, that their pretentions to 
grief might not be difcovered.—In the 16th chapter, he reports the 
dying words of Pifo—who, after complaining that he had been falfely 
accufed, and that the evidence in his favor had not been attended to, 
faid, in a codicil to Ciefar, which he left—“ I call the immortal Gods 

* Dion says, 1. 58, p. 621, D., xauitip rov Tt^Eptov vnettyrttrotyTss on rris rwn 
ttotwv ^toixrjasujs h^e tote otTrscr^Ero.— Suetonius says, iii. 41, that he cared 
nothing for the republic—and— 51, that he encouraged them to hope that he 
would attend. 


135 


I 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother . 

to witnefs that I have lived faithfully towards you, and pioufly towards 

your mother; and I befeech you both to think of my children.”_ 

Confpiratione inimicorum, et invidia fall! criminis oppreffus, quatenus 
veritati et innocentiae meae nufquam locus ell; deos immortales teflor 
vixiiTe me, Caefur, cum fide adverfum te, neque alia in matrem tuam 
pietate: vofque oro Iiberis meis confulatis.—In the next chapter, 17, 
he fays, that Tiberius, at the earnef intreaty of his mother , fhamefully 
and fcandaloufly, defended, in the Senate, Piancina, the murderer of 
her grand-fon, who, he fays, chapter 14, was not poiloned, and, who, 
we have feen, CHAP. V, was not murdered.—Pro Piancina cum 
pud ore et flagitio difleruit, matris preces obtendens.—And, in the 64th 
chapter, he fays, that Tiberius, who, in the beginning of the year 
774, went into Campania, and, with a defign never to return— 

y v. • 

longam et continuam abfentiam paulatim meditans—and, who, feern- 

ingly, in purfuance of his intention at the outfet, remained there till 

the following year, on hearing of the fudden illnefs of his mother, 

thought it neceffary to return inflantly.—Sub idem tempus Juliae 

Auguffoe valetudo atrox ncccfitudinem Principi fecit fejiinati in urbera 

reditus:—Now as Tacitus has declared that the illnefs of Livia made 
✓ 

Tiberius think it neceffary to return to the city in hafc , notwithftand- 
ing he had, before his outfet, formed a defign never to return, who 
would fuppofe that he meant to have it underflood that he was of¬ 
fended at her ?—And yet he, we find, fubjoins this very fapient and 
unexpected alternative—their concord was hitherto fincere—or—their 
refentments were concealed—fincera adhuc inter matrem filiumque 
Concordia, five, occultis odiis—that is—as we prefume, jufl as if he 
had faid—thev flill either agreed, or, difagreed.—But after what he 
had faid, i. 72, who would have expected to hear him. admit that their 
concord might flill have been fincere ? —And, who, after what he had 
faid, ii. 34, and iii. 3, 17, and what he fays here, would have ex- 


136 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother. 

pe&ed him to inftnuate that their enmity might have been concealed ? 
If Tiberius, notwithftanding his defign of living continually at a great 
diftance from Rome, thought it neceflary to return quickly, as foon 
as he heard of his mother’s illnefs, does not this feem to prove that 
their concord was {till fincere?—Why then fhould Tacitus, after 
having produced an unqueftionable proof that their concord was {till 
fincere, have thought it at all to his credit to intimate that it may 
not have been fo, and only becaufe, it was fu[i[iofcd> that Tiberius 
had, a little before—paulo ante—been offended at her ?—And why, 
does he fay, fome fuppofed that he was offended at her ?—fcil.—^ 
Livia had, not long before, i. e.—not long before 775, caufed her 
name to be inferibed on a flatue of Auguftus before that of Tiberius, 
and this, as was fu/ijiofed, offended him—idque ille credebatur, ut 
inferius majeftate Principis, gravi et diffimulata offenfione abdidifle.—- 
But whatever he might have been, he, it feems, was not fo offended 
now as to negleft to fee her—or—to refufe any of the honors voted 
to her, on this occafion, by the Senate.—Tacitbs then, here aflerts 
that Tiberius had a due regard for his mother in the year 775.—In 
the year following, he fays, iv. 8, that he bewailed, in the Senate, 
the extremity of her age—Miferatufque Auguftae extremam fene&am. 
Laftly he, v. 3, once more afferts pofitively that his obfequioufnefs 
towards her, was, to the laft, inveterate—quia Tiberio, inveteratum 
erga matrem obfequium. 

This is the evidence on this point which we collefl from what 
Tacitus fays of fehe conduft ofTiberius towards his mother before fhe 
died.—Let us now attend to what he fays of the conduct of Tiberius 

towards her memory after file was dead, 

/ ’ 7 

He, fays Tacitus, would receive but very few of thofe many honors 
bountifully decreed her by the. Senate—hoxtorcfque-memoriae ejus ab 


137 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother . 

Senatu large decretos, quaft per modeftiam imminuit, paucis admo- 
dum receptis.—What honors thofe were which were liberally decreed 
her by the Senate, after her death, he does not fay—-nor what thofe 
many were, which he refufed—neither does he fay what thofe very 
few were which he accepted.—To this he fubjoins the reafon why he 
refufed thofe many—ne coeleftis religio decerneretur—and afterwards 
informs us, that Tiberius obferved, it was her own option—fie ipfam 
maluifle.—But what ?—Did fhe order mod of thofe honors to be re¬ 
fufed—ne coeleftis religio decerneretur?—What celeftial religion could 
the have meant?—Had not Tacitus, A. i. u, informed us, that 
celeftial religions in general had been already decreed to Auguftus ? 
Had not the Senate before, u. c. 776, ordered her to be worfhipped? 
And did fhe not then confent to it?—Why then fhould fhe be thought 
to have had any concern about celeftial religion ?—Efpecially about 
the decreeing of it ?—Or—how could fhe have thought that the ac- 
ceptance of any of the honors which fhe ordered to be refufed would 
tend to accelerate the decreeing of any religion ?—Would the decree¬ 
ing of any religion neceftarily follow her acceptance of thofe honors? 
And what if it did ?—Why would fhe wifh to hinder celeftial religion 
from being once more decreed ?—But of this more hereafter ? 

In the vi. 5. Tacitus mentions a fa& which feems to imply that 
Tiberius muft have had the greateft veneration for her memory in the 
year 785—that is—nearly three years after fhe was dead—if not that 
what he had before faid of his refufal of almoft all the honors decreed 
to her by the Senate is not a little likely to be falfe.—He there fays, 
that Cotta Meftalinus, who, he admits in the fequel of that chapter, 

was one of the moft intimate friends of Tiberius, was accufed, in the 

v . : 1 

Senate, of having faid the following thing of an entertainment, given, 


Cc 


138 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother . 

cither on the birth-day of Augufta to certain priefts, or, on a birth-day 

i 

to the priefts of Augufta, of which he himfelf partook—“ that it was 
a funeral, or, expiatory fupper—et cum die natali Augufta; inter 
facerdotes epularetur, novendialem earn coenam dixifle.” Cotta, being 
prefted hard on the fubjeCt, appealed to Tiberius, who, inftead of 
finding fault with him for having been prefent at fuch a feaft, inflantly 
wrote a letter to the Senate, in which, after reverting to the com¬ 
mencement of their intimacy, and enumerating his many fervices, 
he enjoined them to take no notice of expreffions ufed in the hour of 
conviviality, which, at fuch times, were liable to be mifunderftood. 
By this then we find that either the birth-day of Augufta was kept 
three years after her death—or, that priefts were continued to officiate 
to her (as they did to her in her life-time) in conjunction with Tibe¬ 
rius and the Senate—that a friend of Tiberius attended their convivial 
meeting—and that Tiberius was not offended at it—though he would 
not be worfhipped himfelf.—Was fhe, as Tiberius himfelf, we ffiall 
find, alfo was, worfhipped in fpite ?—Why then fhould Tacitus have 
faid that Tiberius refufed almoft all the honors decreed to her by the 
Senate.—And what can he have meant by faying—et addito ne 
coeleftis religio decerneretur—and—lie ipfam maluifle?—If fhe had 
any objection to make to her own deification why did fhe not make it 
before her death? 

Having now confidered all that Tacitus has advanced on this fub- 
jeCt—let us proceed to confider what other writers have faid on it, 

Seneca, in his Confol. to Marcia for the lofs of her fon, chapter 4, 
quotes the example of Livia, who, it feems, by two or three places 
in this work, was then alive, and intimately acquainted with Marcia. 
Livia, fays he, was inconfolable for the lofs of her fon Drufus, but 

fhe attended to the confolation of Arcus, whofe perfuafions were of 

/ 

/ 

+- 

\ 


t 


I 


139 

l 

\ 

Why Tiberius did not sec his dying mother . 

. /* 

more avail than even the filial piety of Tiberius—plufqtiam Tiberium 
filium, cujus /tietas efficiebat, ut in illo acerbo et defleto gentibus 
funere, nihil fibi nifi numerum deefle fentiret.—This confolation, it 

fhould be obferved, Seneca wrote after the death of Cord us, the 

\ 

father of Marcia, who, as Tacitus fays, iv. 35, killed himfelf u. c. 
778—and therefore two years after he pretended that fome thought 
that the piety of Tiberius towards his mother, in u. c. 775, was not 
fincere, and ten years after he was, as Tacitus fays, A. i. 72, lam¬ 
pooned by the anonymous fatyrifts for his impiety towards her. 

Paterculus, who wrote the year after the death of Livia u. c. 783, 
and addrefled his work to Vinicius, the then conful, fpeaks of Tibe¬ 
rius as having, for the three years pafl, been overcome with grief on 
feveral accounts—and, as having been, nobody knows how long, in¬ 
wardly devoured by a certain latent fire—and, moreover, as having 
had his grief not a little increafed by the infamous proceedings of 
Agrippina and Nero.—After having deplored all this to Vinicius, 
Paterculus concludes his hiftory with this remark—the grief of this 

V 

period has been increafed by the lofs of his moft eminent mother-^ 

a woman, in every thing, more like the Gods than men; whofe- 

/ 

power nobody felt unlefs by the removal of danger, or, the acceflion 
df dignity. 

Suetonius, iii. 51, gives a quite different account of the con* 
du£t of Tiberius towards his mother juft before and after he* 
death.—He fays that Tiberius never faw her but once in the courfe 
of the lafl three years—that he would not attend her funeral—that he 
would not execute her will—that he perfecuted all her friends and 
acquaintances—efpecially thofe to whom fhe had left the care of her 



Cc 2 


I 


140 

I _ - - ' 

Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother . 

funeral—that he forbad her body to be confecrated—and that he pre¬ 
tended {he had left orders that it {hould not.—But though Suetonius 

* 

fays all this, iii. 51, yet he has faid enough in the next book, c. 1, 15, 
to convince us that he did not refufe any other honor befides confe- 
cration, if not to convince us that all the reft cannot have been true— 
chapter 1, he fays, that Tiberius permitted Caius to fpeak her funeral 
oration—and, chapter 15, he fays, that Caius heaped, by one decree 
of the Senate, all the honors on his grand-mother Antonia, which 
had been ever conferred on Livia. 

Dion fays, 1 . lviii, p. 621, C. D., that Tiberius would not accept 

W . N 

of any other honor befides a public funeral and images, &c. and, that 
he ftrenuoufly deprecated her immortalization— ^ayotri<r&n»qti aynnpvs 
Qt'M'yopsvtTtvj --Dion further fays, that the Senate not only decreed 
her what Tiberius ordered — wtsaXi —but that they alfo decreed her a 
mourning of matrons, for a year, and (what was never before granted 
to a woman) an Arch, and, for this reafon—becaufe {he had laved 
many fenators, and had provided for their children.—This Arch, he 
fubjoins, Tiberius undertook to ere& at his own expence, but never 
did it.* Dion alfo feems to fay,, 1. lix, p. 648, B., that a profufion 
of honors were voted her, and, among the reft, immortality— 

to. re uWotf oca ry re A mix s^sooto, t'l'ytytcQvi, nxt ivx x 9 xvxTicQy) non sis 
to ( 3 s\tvrnptov xvxtsQy), 

Seneca and Paterculus then, we find, contradict Tacitus concerning 
the piety of Tiberius towards his mother.—And Suetonius and Dion, 
we alfo find, contradict him with regard to the honors accepted and re- 

fufed by him—they fay that the Senate voted her, befides thofe which 

% 

* Suetonius says, v. 11, that an Arch was decreed tp Tiberius by the 
Senate, bu4 never built. 




Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother . 

- ' 'X * 

Tiberius ordered, many other—and, that Tiberius did not refufe any 
other befides her confecration.—Now if confecration or immoctaliza* 
tion was the only honor refufed by him why did not Tacitus tell us fo? 
Was he afraid that his report of what Tiberius added—viz-—ne coeleftis 
feligio decerneretur—would, in that cafe, become queflionable 
How could the decreeing of her immortalization or confecration be 
confidered as any thing elfe but the decreeing of celeflial religion 
What elfe could it have been ?—Do not Seneca, Suetonius, and Dion 
feem to intimate that it was really fo ?—Seneca, we know, fays of 
Claudius. Apoc —Divam Auguftam aviam fuam quam ipfe Deam effe 
juflit.—Suetonius fays of him, v. 11—A vise Liviae divinos honores 
decernendos curavit.—And Dion fays of him, 1 . lx, p. 667, that he 
gave her immortality —xxi xnrnQxvxvixtv .—All which furely imply 
that to deify her and to give her divine honors were the fame as to 
decree her immortality.—Would Tiberius then have added fuch a 
ridiculous reafon ?—Or, would he, who had feveral years before pub- 
lifhed an edi& prohibiting his own worfhip—and was then notoriously 
a worfhipper of Chrift, have permitted, on any condition, the wor¬ 
fhip of his mother?—Or, would fhe, who, as Jofephus fays, had 
always been intimately acquainted with Herod and his family, and 
honored by them as their patronefs, and who, as Philo fays, had con¬ 
tributed to the fupport of the worfhip of the temples, have been, to the 
laft, concerned about the religion of the Romans?—It is true that fhe 
had, but four years before, confented to be worfhipped in conjun&ion 
with the Senate and her fon, and that a coin, with this infeription— 
©E/« K xurxpos ©£<** leXixs ZeGocstvs *—if not another with this— 

Diva? Julia?—had, before that again, been flruck, yet as fhe had been 
previoufly acquainted with the religion of the Jews, and Chriftianity 


* Tristanus T. I. p. 127. 


Whi/ Tiberius did not see his dying mother. 

had then been publifhed, * how are we to be fure that the was not in¬ 
clined to favor that?—And as Tiberius himfelf was worlhipped, in op- 
pofition to his own edi£t, how fhall we be fure that the Senate may not 
have decreed her divine honors in oppofition both to her own inclina¬ 
tion and to his remonflrance ?—Does not Dion feem to fay, L lix, 
p. 648, B., thatfhe was, notwithstanding Tiberius fo Itrenuoully oppo- 
fed it, deified, when fhe received fuch a profufion of other honors?— 

- ** _ 1 , * 

He there fays, that Caius not only bellowed on his departed filter Dru- 
filla all the other honors that had been voted to Livia but alfo immortality 

*—xxi 01 rx rt otWx, oaroc r*i rt A ihix i^e^oro rJ/ittp/crOi1 x.xi ivx x 9 xvxr:a 9 '/i, x.xt 

sts ro fixXivTDptov xpva-Y) ccvartQy .’—And does not Tacitus himfelf feem to 
intimate that the Senate did a&ually confecrate her, by obferving that 
fhe had [iriejls of her own, as, Prudentius alfo feems to teltify by the 
following line—Adjecere facrum fieret quo Livia Juno.*—Claudius, 
we have indeed jull leen, is faid by Seneca and others, to have had 
the credit of having caufed her confecration, but may it not be 

9 

doubted whether he did any thing more than revive the dormant 
decree ?—Has not Seneca himfelf given us fomething like a reafon to 
doubt it by naming her— Divam Augultam—in the very beginning of 
the fentence wherein he fpeaks of her deification by Claudius? 

As then it appears by the evidence of Suetonius and Dion that 
Tiberius oppofed the deification of his mother, as he had before that 
of himfelf—and—that he oppofed the former at his mother’s rcqueft, 
but notwithfianding all the oppofition which he made to it he could 
not prevent it, ought not Tacitus to have acquainted us with this ?— 
Inltead of doing fo, he has, we find, informed us that Tiberius refufed 
all honors (which, we find, by the report of Suetonius and Dion, 
was not true,) not, indeed, abfolutely, but, optionally—fic illam 


1. in Sjraiaach.. g. 


143 


\ 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother. 

maluifle.—As then this feems to have been the cafe—and—ne coeleftis 
religio—does not well comport with either the refufal of honors, or, 
with her option, fuppofe we endeavour to make this diflonant fentence 
to be more in confonance both with what precedes and follows.— 

— t 

What then if we read ni for ne P* —And what if his meaning had been 
this ?—Tiberius, who, in the year before had propofed it to the Senate 
to authorife the worfhip of Chrift, and had the mortification to fee 
his propofal rejected, declared that it was his mother’s lafl command 
that but few of the honors, which the Senate intended to decree to 
her memory, fhould be accepted, tk, unlefs they would, at the fame 
time, decree celeftial religion—that is—decree that Chrift fhould be 
worfhipped. 

Tiberius then, we have feen, did not, out of any difrefpeft to his 
mother, refufe the honors decreed to her, but, in compliance with 
her own injunction.—Why then lhould we be expected to believa 
that he voluntarily negleCted to fee her in her laft illnefs, or, to at¬ 
tend her funeral?—Why, as he complained to the Senate, a few 
months before, that his enemies had a defign on his life, lhould we 
not think that the fear of being afiafiinated is much more likely to 
have deterred him from going to Rome to fee her ?—and to attend 
.her funeral?—But why fhould fo good a prince, who, as Suetonius 
fays, iii. 67, had the title of Pater Patriae voted him by the Senate, in 
the very beginning of his reign—ut imperium inierit—and who, as 
Tacitus fays, A. i. 72, had the fame title often given him by the 
people—a populo ftepius ingeftum—who had, for his paft fervices, 

often received the thanks of the Senate—who had, by their permiftion, 

\ 

* The use of ni for nisi is very common with Tacitus—in the reiga of 
Tiberius only Yf$ often see it.*—See A. i. 69—ii, 39- iii. 14, 16, 28- iv. n, 
30, 64, 









I 


144 

* - * 

Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother . 

i 

been every where worfhipped—who had, but the year before, been, 
both by the Senate and the people, thanked for his beneficence—and 
who ufed to go any where alone.*—Why fhould fuch an one have 
been afraid of what his enemies could do to him ?—Unlefs, indeed, 
iie, as Tacitus remarks, after having done fo much good, artfully 
contrived to introduce a moft (as he alfo fays) grievous evil, or, 
execrable fupcrftition—that is—as we imagine, an ineftimable good, 
or, the belief of the divinity of Chrift, and, thereby caufed that in¬ 
ternal alarm, which, fays he, was far worfe than the revolt of a war - 
dike people, and, perhaps, that rage for accufing, which, as Seneca fays, 
was worfe than any civil war , and more deftru&ive to the Romans. 
Now if Tiberius did introduce Chriftianity into Rome, and much 
opposition was, as both Seneca and Tacitus feem to fay, and, as 
Clemens, of Rome, expreflly fays, made to it, at the very firft, by 
unbelievers, and, asTertullian fays, even by a majority of the Senate— 
for Tiberius, he fays, firft propofed it to them to admit the worfhip 
of Chrift at Rome, and that they, inftead of acceding to the propofal, 
ordered all Chriftians to leave Rome, and, of courfe, Tiberius him- 
felf, (for he, it feems, as the fame writer fays, remained ftill-of the 
fame perfuafion,) and, by that means, fuppreffed it, as Tacitus fays, 
for the prefent.—If, fay we again, Tiberius did really introduce 
Chriftianity into Rome, and was, thereby, the caufe of fo much dif- 
cord, how are we to be fure that he may not have been afraid of fome 
of the adverfaries of Chriftianity, and of moft of the Senate ?—Does 
not all that Tacitus fays, iv. 74, of the internal alarm—of the means 
which the Senate took to remove it—viz—the religious adulation of 

* Suetonius, iii. 30, Nunquam curiam nisi solus intravit: leclica, &c.—40, 
potestatem omnibus adeundi sui fecit; tanto magis, &c.—Tacitus, iv.’22, Non 
cunctauter Tiberius pergit in domum, visit cubicultrm: &c.-^Dion, 1. Ivii. 
p. 609, B. C. D. 


I 


Why Tiberius did not see his dying mother. 

i 

Tiberius—of the many petitions, which they, in the midft of all this 
confulion, fent to Tiberius to requefl him to return to Rome—of his 
refuting, contrary to his ufual pra&ice, to comply—of their going, 
while Rome was Hill agitated with terror, in a body, with the knights 
and the commonalty, to the coaft of Campania for the foie purpofe 
of feeing him—of the grievous exit that awaited thofe cheerful few 
who had been favored with a light of Sejanusdoes not all this feem 
to indicate that Tiberius was afraid to truft himfelf with them ? 















Dd 


i 




116 


; > f ♦ f / * ; f • 


-—-———- 






-— 


--*—— 




CHAPTER IX. 


\ 


Why and when Tiberius forb ad instant executions. 

It was ever the pra£tice of the Romans, till the reign of Tibe¬ 
rius, to execute thofe who had been condemned for any fort of crime 
as foon as fentence had been palled on them. Tiberius, we are in¬ 
formed by Suetonius, iii. 75, "Tacitus, iii. 49, and Dion, l. 57, p. 616, 
617, was the firft who put a flop to this practice. The occafion, fay 
they, was this—Lutorius Prifcus, in the 8th year of Tiberius, u. c. 

X 

774, wrote a copy of verfes againft Drufus, while lick; and the 
Senate, without confulting Tiberius, who was at the time abfent. 
on the point, profecuted him on his own confeffion, for the defama¬ 
tion, and found him guilty of the crime, and, almoft unanimoullv, 
condemned him to fuffer death for the offence, and, as ufual, in- 
ffantly ordered him to be executed. All this was done without the 
knowledge of Tiberius. As foon as he was informed of the tranfac- 
^tion, he, who, as Suetonius fays, ufed to refer all matters to the 
Senate, who was contented to ha*e fome matters decided againft his 




I 









/ 


147 

Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions. 

t 

will, immediately, fays Dion, 1 . 57, 617, A., exprefiea his difappro- 
bation of the proceeding, and ordered the Senate to pafs a decree— 
Tt xmrois, hxi loy/xi ti 'nxpx'boQrivzi uaXtvsri —that no condemned 
perfon fhould, from that time, be executed within ten days after 
fentence had been palled upon him. 

Tiberius then, we find, is allowed by thofe three hiftorians to have 
been the fole^aufe of this new regulation, and, by two of them, to 
have been fo in the 8th year of his reign. But though both Tacitus 
and Dion allow, that Tiberius was, in the 8th of his reign, the caufe 
of palling this moll humane decree, and, that he caufed it to be 
palTed, becaufe the Senate had, almoft unanimoufly, put a man to 
death for faying that he had libelled his lick fon, without bringing him 
acquainted with it;—yet, we find, that they both appear to fay that it 
was, about fix years after, violated, by puting a man to death, on 
the accufation of four of their own body, for only [peaking certain 

unknown words, which were drawn from him, in favor of German!- 

\ 

cus, who had then been dead nearly nine years, and again ft the pride, 
the cruelty, and the expectations of Sejanus, and fome others about 
Tiberius.—Tacitus alfo adds, that Tiberius himfelf pretty clearly— 

haud obfeure—ordered the Senate to do it, and, feemingly, imme T 

/ * * 

diatcly —nec mora, quin decerneretur. 

Let us confider what Tacitus fays of this matter a little attentively. 
He relates molt of the particulars of it A. iv. c. 68, 69, 70. 

He begins the 68th with the names of the confuls for that year, 
and then immediately proceeds to fay how filthy—foedum—the begin-* 
ning of the year was rendered by the unexpected imprifonment ot an 
illuftrious Roman knight for his attachment to the family of Gerrmnicus. 

Dd 2 


v 


I 


148 

/ * • ' ,V* 

„ . 0 ' I 

Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions. 

And in the fequel of the chapter he fays who were his aceufers— 
viz—four expe&ants of the enfuing confulfhip*—and—how they, 
in order to ingratiate themfelves, not with Tiberius, but with Sejanus* 

(for by him they all hoped to obtain that office,) contrived to accufe 

\ 

him of having fpoken treafonable words.—Their contrivance was, 
fays, he, this—one of them got acquainted with him in the flreets 
and drew him into converfation about his departed friend and about 
his family, and, by appearing to commiferate them, obtained the con¬ 
fidence of Sabinus, (for that was the name of this knight.)—Having 
fecured this point—they next agreed that his pretended friend fhould 
invite him to his houfe, and take him into a certain clofet in the upper 
ftory, which was fo near the roof, that any thing which was faid there 
could be diftinftly heard—over this clofet the other three agreed to 
take their flation.—All things being thus contrived, Sabinus was, by 
his pretended friend, conduced to this clofet, where they firft con- 
verfed—-not about the family of Germanicus, and then about the 
cruelty, the pride, and the expe&ations of Sejanus, not even (paring 
Tiberius—ne in Tiberium quidem convicio abftinet—but about what 
had recently happened—recens cognita—then the converfation turned 
on what might be fhortly expe&ed—inftantia—which, it fcems, was 
a copious fubjeft—quorum adfatim copia—and, laftly, a great deal 
was faid of new terrors —ac novos terrores cumulat—the fubftance of 
this converfation thofe four confpirators confidered as treafonable, 
and contrived to report it, in that light, to Tiberius, then atCaprere. 
No fooner was this known, than all the city was in the utmofl con¬ 
firmation, as if the fame thing which had happened to Sabinus might 

« 

* How can four candidates for an office, that was discharged by two only, 
be supposed to have entered into such a conspiracy—especially so soon after 
the election was passed ? 


I 


119 


i 


Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions. 

happen to every individual, however humble.—Non alias magis anxia 
et pavens civitas, egens adverfus proximos, congreffiis, colloquia, 
notae ignotasque aurai vitari: etiam muta atque inanima, tedium, et 
parietes circumfpedlabantur.—But what?—Were the people indeed fo 
terrified at the expectation that the fame thing might happen to any 
of them?*—What fays Pliny of the feelings of the people on this occa- 
fion?—He fays, viii. 40, that the body of Sabinus was, after his exe* 

cution, tumbled down the Gemonix—and that his dog, which had 

/ 

followed him all the way to the place of execution, {till kept clofeto 
him, howling, as if for grief, to the admiration of a great number of 
people —magna populi romani corona—fome of whom procured fom£ 
meat for him, which he inftantly offered to his dead mafter.—The 
body-was then thrown into the river, and the faithful dog, to the no 
little furprife of the furrounding multitude —effufa multitudine ad fpee- 
tandam atiimalis fidem—fwam after it and endeavoured to bring it out. 
And, latlly, Tacitus, in the 70th chapter, relates how Tiberius, after 
having fet on him the mof dijfolute of the libertines ,* ordered him to be 
tried not for writing, but for uttering thofe complaints concerning the 
times, and to be immediately executed.—His own words—Sed Cxfar 
folemnia incipientis anni kalendis januariis epiftola precatus; vertit in 
Sabinum corruptos quofdam libertorum, et petitum fe arguens, ultion- 
etnque haud obfeure pofeebat.—Now how could Tiberius have pre¬ 
fumed, on the evidence Hated by thofe four fenatorials, to affirm that 
lie was, any other way than with foul words, attacked by Sabinus—and, 
that he was the principal objedt of his obloquy?—If Tiberius, by peti¬ 
tum fe arguens, meant to affirm that Sabinus had entered into a treafon- 
able converfation againft himfelf, he, it feems, mufl have derived that 

* N. B. He is said, by Philo, p. 786, F., to have disliked Helico for being 
a knave. 


i 


loO 

Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions . 

information, not from tliofe four candidates for the confulfhip, for they 

did not charge Sabinus with any thing more than with having fpokcn 

difrefpe&fully of him, but, afterwards, from thofe profligate libertines. 

But how was it that Sabinus, knowing their characters, fhould, after 

having fuffered fo much, through a pretended friend, fufFer himfelf to 

be again inveigled into a like converfation by Csefar’s own creatures ? 

However, he, it feems, demanded, in a manner not to be mifunder- 

Itood, the immediate execution of him, and his demand was, by the 

Senate, immediately, on the firft day of the year, afiented to—for 
» \ \ 
Sabinus exclaimed, on the way to the place of execution—Sic inchoari 

annum, &c.—The city, fays Tacitus, was again panic {truck—fuga, 

vaftitas: deferi itinera, fora: et quidam regrediehantur, oftentabantque 

fe rurfum, id ipfum paventes, quod timuiifent.*—After the execution 

of Sabinus, fays Tacitus, Tiberius returned thanks to the Senate for 

having punifhed an enemy to the republic—and added that his life was 

in danger—that his enemies, whom be would not name, had a defigu 

againlt it: but, fubjoins Tacitus, though he w’ould not fay who 

thofe enemies were, nobody doubted but that he meant Agrippina 

and Nero. 

Tacitus then fays, that Tiberius himfelf, within fix years after he 
had caufed the Senate to pafs this celebrated decree (which it fhould 

N» \ 

* This it appears by what Tacitus had previously said, iv. 67, and, by what 
Dion says, 1. 58, init., must have happened very shortly after Tiberius went to 
Capreae—and—but a few months, as Tacitus also says, 62, 63, 64, after the 
two disasters happened at Fidenac and at Rome—on the former of which he, 
says Suetonius, ii*'. 40 , at the request of the friends of the sufferers (who, it 
seems, were mostly of Rome) went from Capreas to Fidenae, and while he was 
there permitted any person to have access to him;—and, on the latter he, says 
Tacitus, iv. 64 , behaved so beneficently that he received the thanks of both 
the Senate and the people. 


\ 


I 




Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions . 

be remembered he did becaufe they had prefumed to execute a man 
tor only writing a few verfes on his lick fon, and, which was never 
annulled) a£ted in defiance of it—or, rather—caufed them to a£t in 
defiance of it.—But, admitting that he encouraged the bafe defign of 
thole four fenators, and, that he employed thofe vile libertines to 
fecond what thofe fenators had begun, can it alfo be fuppofed that 
he would have ordered the Senate to aft in defiance of his own decree? 
And when Sabinus had only fpoken certain unknown words, and 

thofe in reply to fome obfervation of a fuperior?—But have we not 

... • * 

fomething like a reafon to queflion this whole report of Tacitus con- 

i ■: ' : i < 

cernirig Sabinus, when we coniider what Pliny fays of his profecution 
in the 14th year of Tiberius?—He fays, viii. 40—Sed fuper omnia, 
in noftro awo aftis populi romani t citatum, Appio Junio et P. Silio 
Col's, cum animadverteretur ex cauffa Neronis , Germanici filii, in 
Titium Sabinuin et fervitia. ejus .—Titius Sabinus then was, in the 
14th year of Tiberius, by the report of Pliny, who lived at the time, 
and who appealed to the A&a P. R., involved, together with his 
dependants, in fome treafonable affair with Nero, the fon of Germa- 
nicus, and was, on that account, tried by the Senate.—Pliny, it fhould 
be obferved, fays nothing of the interference ofTiberiu 9 , nor of Sabi¬ 
nus having been both imprifoned and executed on the firft day of the 
year—only fays that it happened in the confulfhip of App. J. and, 
P. Sil.—Had it happened on the firil day of that year would he not 
have noticed fo remarkable an occurrence?—Dion, however, who, 
we find, alfo palfes by thofe circumftances, fays, that Sabinus was, 
on the Jame day — •xvQTip.sfoy ——put to prifoo, and that he was executed 
uncQmdenined — ax.fiirws —~'which lu.fl remark, is, we have teen, contrary 
to the report of Tacitus, who fays—nec mova quin decerneretur. 



/ 


I 


Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions. 

But what occafion have we to acquiefce in the report of either of 
thofe contradictory and therefore fufpicious hiftorians, when we are 
allured, by the unanimous evidence of four moll credible hiftorians, 
who lived in the reign of Tiberius, that one of his provincial prcefeCts 
did, in the fame year, much againft his own will, and without con- 
fulting Tiberius, confent to the immediate execution of the molt 
exalted, beneficent, and inoffenfive perfonage that ever came into the 
world.—The four hiftorians above meant are the four Evangelifts— 

i 

all of whom, we find, fay that our Lord was accufed by the rulers 
of the Jews, before Pilate, of having faid that he was a king, and, of 
having been a ring-leader of fedition—and, that he was, on the fame 
day, pronounced guilty, and immediately executed. 

Now can it be fuppofed that Pilate, who difliked the Jews and their 
religion, who had, on their complaint, been twice reprimanded by 
Tiberius, who was glad to refer the hearing of the charge to Herod, 
as being the governor of the country where the alledged crime was 
faid to have been committed, who, after having heard Herod’s report 
on the cafe, called the rulers of the Jews together to let them know 
that neither Herod nor himfelf had found any fault at all in him, who 
faid to them, the third time, on their refolutely demanding his cruci¬ 
fixion—Why ?—What evil hath he done ?—Who ftill perfifted in re* 
filling to comply with their demand till a tumult was likely to enfue, 
who was importuned by his wife to have nothing to do with him, who 
walhed his hands of the guilt of his condemnation—and, who was re¬ 
quired, every year, to make a return of his official conduft.—Can it 
be fuppofed that Pilate would, after all this, have fuffered himfelf to 

be compelled to aCl in defiance of this decree without authority_ 

efpecially, as he knew, that Tiberius would not permit any of his pne- 


i 


X 


153 

Why and when Tiber ins forbad instant executions . 

lefts to be guilty of injufliee, and that our Lord had fo many followers 
all over Judea and Galilee ?—Or, that the rulers of the Jews, who 
protefted that they would have no king but Tiberius, would, if that 
decree had been then palled, have demanded the immediate execu¬ 
tion of our Lord fo vehemently, and in the name too of Tiberius? 

This celebrated decree then clearly appears to have been palled not 
till after the crucifixion of our Lord, and, as Sabinus is faid to have 
been put to death in the beginning of u. c. 781, feveral months at 
leaft after his death.—As then this appears to be fo very clear—let us 
proceed to enquire whether it may not have been palled before the 
death of Sejanus—for, notwithflanding he was, by the Senate, executed 
on the fame day in which he was apprehended—and—as Dion would 
have it thought, in compliance with the prefumed intimation of Tibe¬ 
rius, yet, why, if as both Tacitus and Dion fay, that decree had 
then been palled, fhould it have been prefumed that he, after having 
caufed the Senate to pals it, expected them to execute his prime 
minifter fo foon, and, as Dion fays, without trial. 

W e are informed by Dion, 1 . 58, that Tiberius, in the beginning 
of the 18th year of his reign, confident of the co-operation of the 
Senate and of the people, determined to crulh Sejanus—and—that he, 
in order to accomplilh his purpofe, wrote a very prolix incoherent 
letter to the confcript fathers.—This letter, fays he, p. 626, E., was, 
by Macro, delivered to the confuls early in the morning of the day 
in which Sejanus was executed.—It, continues Dion, did not contain 
any exprefs order for the execution of Sejanus— xvTixpv; yap enrohnaxav 
stvTo* 0 TtCcpios- « 7 TpoazrxZsv —and of courfe not for his immediate execu¬ 
tion, but only here and there glanced at him.—No fooner, fays he, 
p. 627, D., had this incomprehenfible letter been read than the Senate, 

Ee 



154 


Why and when Tiberius forhacl instant executions. 

without in the leaft endeavouring to get at a right underftanding of it, 
(fo far were they from being difpofed to make any attempt of the 
kind, that they, one and all, immediately loaded him with reproaches,) 
and without any trial, (for Regulus, he fays, fearing a tumult would, 
as Sejanus had fo many friends and relations, enfue, if he was to pro¬ 
ceed to try him, after having alked one only what fhould be done 
with him, and prefuming that he faid in reply—bind him and put 
him to prifon, immediately proceeded to do it)—and, on the fame 
day, as Dion proceeds to fay, p. 628, A , executed him. 

Now if Tiberius wrote thus obfeurely of Sejanus, and did not 
fpecify any charge againft him, how could he have expected that he 
would be tried ?—And if he gave no order for his execution, efpecially 
his immediate execution, does it not imply that the Senate mull have 
afted arbitrarily, if not in defiance of his decree ? 

Again—Tacitus has, vi. 18, mentioned another inftance of imme¬ 
diate executions—he there fays—and the former fears returned with 
the accufation of Conlidius Proculus, of high-treafon, whom the 
Senate feized, while he was celebrating a birth-day, condemned and 
killed.—Dein redeunt priores metus, poftulato majeftatis Confidio 
Proculo: qui nullo pavore diem natalem celebrans, raptus in Curiam 
pariterque damnatus interfe&ufque. 

Before we take our leave of this inftance of the- readinefs of the 
Senate to punilh, with immediate death, thofe who were accufed of 
high-treafon, it may not be amifs to attend to what both Tacitus and 
Dion fay happened a little before in the fame year. 

Great complaints were, fays Tacitus, c 16, made by accufers 
againft ufurers, who were fo powerful that Gracchus, the prxtor, 
thought it right to take the fenfe of the fathers on the point.—The 


155 


t 

Why and when Tiberius forhad instant executions. 

fathers afraid to decide on it, defired Tiberius to direfl them how to 

proceed in the bufinefs—with their requeft he inftantly complied.— 

This is nearly the fum of the contents of this chapter.—In the next— 

viz—17, he fays, that a great fcarcity of coin enfued—Hinc, See .-— 

which, he fays, was partly occafioned by the pra&ice of uftirers, and 

partly by the fale of the effefts of condemned perfons, the produce of 
% 

which had been placed either in the exchequer or treafury.—Caefar, 
fays he, again flept forth and lent a large fum of money to the public, 
without intereft, for three years—or, as Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 634, E., 

1 

lent it to fenatorial men, that they might diftribute it, without inter- 
ell, to the public— -to, ts irpx ypt.x to x xtx tx os tvxa^xyx i^ETpixcn, xxi 
^kt^iKixs xx t 'itivTxxoaixs (j.vptx'Sxs ru Syipcocriv sSujkev, xvtxs vir xv^pxv 

$H'ktvruv xtoxu Tots otofjL,Bvots is t ptx fTr) cx^xyEt<r 9 r)vxt .—To this Dion imme¬ 
diately fubjoins what feems to be quite unconne&ed with the fore¬ 
going—viz—that Tiberius ordered all the principal accufers to be 

executed in one day —-tus tb t r ni£or\TOTXTHs tuv rxs xxreyoptxs notupsw* 

/ 

xttoQxveiv iv pux nixtpx txsXtvae.'— Now who can be luppofed to believe 
that any prince would, immediately after having done two fucli noble 
a&s of beneficence in favor of the Roman people, as Tacitus has re¬ 
corded—and, after having removed thofe terrific pells of their repofe 
—accufers, have permitted any one to accufe another—or, an accufed 
perfon to be condemned without trial—and to be immediately exe¬ 
cuted, and in defiance of his decree forbidding fuch hafly executions 5 
And yet Tacitus, we find, fays—that he did both know of the pro¬ 
ceeding and permit it to take place—and, moreover, that he, by fo 
doin^, caufed the former fears of the Romans to return—Dein, redeunt 
priores metus, poflulato majeftatis C. Proculo, See. 

Ee2 


I 


156 

\ i j * 

Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions . 

The next inftance which it may be proper to adduce on this point, 
is that of Alinius Gallus, an aged fenator, and the father of feveral 
confulars, who was brother-in-law to Agrippina,* by marrying Vip- 
fania the firffc wife of Tiberius, and who, as Tacitus fays, iv. 71, had 
moved the Senate, immediately after the affair of Sabinus, that a 
petition fhould be prefented to Tiberius requeuing him to make the 
ground of his fear known to them, to the end, that they might, if 
they could, remove it.—This aged fenator was, fays Tacitus, vi. 23* 
in the yedr 786, no doubt—haud dubium—ffarved to death—but 
whether voluntarily, or by necellity, no one, fays he, could fay— 
incertum habebatur.—Csefar, fays he, was delired to fay whether he 
would permit him to be buried—and was not afhamed to fay that he 
had no obje&ion to it—and to lament his hard lot in being taken off 
before he was tried, as if, in the courfe of three years, he could not 
have caufed him to be tried.—This is nearly the whole of the account 
which Tacitus gives, iv. 23, of the death of this aged fenator—an 
account which feems to be intended to convey a pretty ftrong reflexion 
on Tiberius.—But, of what nature, we cannot perceive.—Neither can 
we, others may fay, nor how this ftory any way tends to illuftrate the 
queflion of immediate executions—for, Tacitus, it feems, is fo far 
from faying that Gallus was condemned that he even complains that 
he was not tried.—True.—But let us attend to what Dion fays of this 
fame Alinius Gallus. 

v 

Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 622, B., that the Senate, the knights, and the 
commonalty of Rome ufed, in the year 782, to fend deputations, 
from each of their ranks, to Tiberius, at Caprea?—and—that Alinius 

* Tacitus says, vi. 25, that Gallus had committed adultery with Agrippina, 
who had then been a widow nearly 15 years. 


1.57 


Why and when Tiberius forbad instant executions. 

Gallus, who had been very forward to make motions tending to in- 
creafe the honors of Sejanus, was, in the year 783, ambitious of being 
employed, by the Senate, as one of their delegates.—Tiberius, fays 

Dion C., received him very kindly — xX\x v.xi irxw xvtov eh^ua-xro. _ But 

in the mean time, he, fays Dion, had fent an epiflle to the Senate ac- 
cufing Gallus, among other things , of having, regardlefs of his own inti¬ 
macy with Syriacus, envied Tiberius the friendfhip of Sejanus.— 
The Senate, continues he, proceeded, without delay, to confider the 
charge, and, without further evidence, and, without even hearing 
Gallus in his own defence, and, on the fame day — f y ty> xvty> yptpx — 
palled fentence of death on him, and fent a praetor to apprehend him 
and to execute him.—The praetor, continues Dion, (not without a 
remark that the whole affair was quite paradoxical and novel,) found 
Gallus regaling himfelf with Tiberius and drinking with him cups of 
mutual love.—And did this praetor prefume to take Gallus away from 
the bufinefs of his embaffy, and from his love feafl, to execution 
immediately?—So, we find, fays Dion.—And would Tiberius permit 
it to be done ?—No, he would not, even though Gallus himfelf 
defired it—but he bade Gallus to be of good courage, and detained 
him as a prifoner at large, till he himfelf fhould return to Rome. 
This, fays Dion, was done by confuls, or, during the confulfhip of 
Tiberius, by praetors,* for three years, not indeed to keep him from 
efcaping, but from laying violent hands on himfelf.—During which 
time, he, fubjoins Dion, was not permitted to fee any body but the 
perfon whofe bullnefs it was to force him to eat. —So that we perceive 
by this that Gallus was not permitted to flarve himfelf, as Tacitus 
fays.—On the contrary, Dion feems to fay, p. 636, B., that he was, 
with many others, put to death. 

* Dion, 1. 58, p. G32, D .—kxi ss <pv\z:i / nv rots xpyn<n-j us ttotb rov TxXXov 
vzpx^tsvxi. 





t , 

t \ 

Why and 'when Tiberias forbad instant executions . 

In fhort—that this decree was not palled till after the death of our 
Lord is plain—and, that the proceeding of the Senate, with refpeft 
to the execution of Sejanus, cannot be adduced as a proof that it was 
Hot palled nearly four years after his death, is not lei’s plain. 







CHATTER X. 







it 


When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empiref 

SuETONIUS tells us, iii. 37, that Tiberius abolifhed all the 
afyla in the empire—Abolevit jus moremque afylorum qua? ufquam 
erant.—Now when did he do this, and why did he do it ? 

That Tiberius fhould have thought of doing it is a matter of no 
little aftonifhment, becaufe Tacitus, we find, fays iii. 60, that he, 
in the year 775, permitted the Senate to take cognizance of the 
Grecian afyla, and to fupprefs thole that had been abufed. The ac¬ 
count which Tacitus gives of this affair is very remarkable, and de- 
ferves our particular attention. And not only the account itfelf is 
very remarkable, but alfo the manner in which he introduces it, for 
by the manner in which he introduces it, we fhall be enabled to per¬ 
ceive, that he permitted the Senate to take cognizance not of the 
Grecian afyla only, but, of all foreign afyla.—He introduces his ac¬ 
count of this matter, with telling us, that Tiberius, by way of con¬ 
firming his defpotifm, ordered all his provincial praefe&s to make, 







When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire? 

every year, a return, not to himfelf, but to the Senate, of the 
memorable occurrences that had happened in the year preceding, as 
they ufed to do in the days of the republic.—His own words are thefe 
—Sed Tiberius, vim fibi principals firmans, imaginem antiquitatis 
fenatui praebebat, poHulata provinciarum ad difquifitionem Patrum 
mittendo.—And can he have meant this as the introduction of what 
concerned the Grecian Hates only?—Does it not feem that the provinces 
in general were to make their complaints to the Senate?—If Tiberius 
made this new regulation, by way, as Tacitus fays, of confolidating 
his fovereignty, would he have ordered the Grecian Hates only to 
make thofe returns?—Would not a partial reHoration of an ancient 
privilege have tended only to remind them of how much more power 
they were Hill deprived ?—Befides—who would have thought that he 
could, by the general terms—poHulata provinciarum—have meant 
only the complaints of the abufes of the afyla in the Grecian Hates? 

If we were to confine our attention to what immediately follows— 
viz—Crebefcebat enim Grscas per urbes liccntia et impunitas afyla 
Hatuendi—we fhould be led to think that he mufi have meant thofe 
complaints only—but if we extend our enquiry though the whole of 
the fequel, we fhall, perhaps, perceive that we feem to have no little 
reafon to think that he evidently meant all foreign afyla. 

But for what reafon, does he fay, thofe numerous unchartered 
afyla were infiituted all over the Grecian Hates?—fcil—complebantur 
templa pefiimis fervitiorum : eodem fublidio obxrati adverfum credi- 
tores :—but were thofe unauthoriled Grecian afyla the only recep¬ 
tacles for fucli fort of wretches ?—Were not thofe at Rome, even by 
the evidence of Tacitus, iii. 36, abufed in the fame manner?—And 
were fuch wretches only (hut up in thofe Grecian afyla?—No—Taci¬ 
tus fays immediately after—fufpeftique capitalium.criminum recepta- 


161 


When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire ? 

bantur.—Having told us that thofe Grecian afyla were receptacles of 
ftate delinquents, he fubjoins—Nec ullum fatis validum imperium 
erat coercendis feditionibus populi, flagitia hominum ut caeremonias 
Deum protegentis.— Igitur , continues he, that is, feemingly, for this 
latter reafon only—placitum ut mitterent civitates jura atque legatos. 
This, then, feems to be the firft and the only ftep which the Senate 
took in confequence of the renewal of their loft privilege. 

Thus far he feems to have confined himfelf to a detail of the abufcs 
pra&ifed in the afyla of the Grecian ftates only.—-Some of which, he 
fays, voluntarily relinquifhed their ufurpations—Et quaedam quod falfo 
ufurpaverant fponte omifere.—But in all the fequel he feems to have 
extended his view of the fubjeft to confederate ftates, and tributary 
kingdoms, if not to thofe allies whofe religion they could not com¬ 
prehend—Magnaque ejus diei fpecies fuit, quo Senatus majorum bqne- 
ficia, fociorum jiafta, regum etiam, qui ante vim romanam yaluerant, 
decreta , ipforumque numinum religiones introfpexit.—As a conclufion 
to all this, and to the chapter, he adds—that the Senate were ftill 
permitted to proceed in the enquiry—libero ut quondam quid firmaret 
mutaretve. 

In the two next chapters—viz—61, 62, he proceeds to mention 
feveral Afiatic ftates that then appeared to prove the prefcriptive rights 
of their afyla.—In the 61ft he mentions the Ephefians, and the Ephe- 
fians only.—In the 62d he places firft the Magnetes—then the Aphro- 
difienfes—then the Stratonicenfes—then the Hierocaefariences—and, 
laftly, the Cyprians.—Thefe are all he mentions by name. 

But befides the deputies from thofe Grecian and Afiatic ftates for 
the rights of their afyla, there were alfo fome from ftill other ftates on 


Ff 




162 


When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire 

the fame bufinefs—for he, we find, begins the next chapter—viz— 
63, with faving—Auditae aliarum quoque civitatum legationes.—But 
what other fiates, fent deputies, he does not fay—nor can we con¬ 
ceive, uniefs the fewifii was one of thofe Hates.—They were, it 
feems, fo many, that he fubjoins—Quorum copia feffi patres, et quia 
fludiis certabatur, confulibus permifere, ut perfpedo jure, et fi qua 
iniquitas involveretur, rem integram rurfus ad fenatum referrent.—By 
which it feems to appear more clearly that the Senate confidered 
themfelves as the proper judges of fuch matters—that they had a 
further hearing on them—and, that they expected further information 
from the confuls. 

In the following year—viz—776, he fays, iv. 14, that the depu¬ 
ties from Samos and Coos petitioned to have the ancient rights of 
their afyla confirmed.—And again, in the next chapter, he fays 
enough to convince us that Tiberius did not, in that year, revoke his 
late concefiion, he there fays of the Senate, that they, even then, 
difeufied every thing—apud quos, etiam turn, cun&a tra&abantur—■* 
and fubjoins a moft remarkable inflance of it, in the cafe of Lucilius 
Capito, the prcefefl of Afia, whofe accufers Tiberius exhorted the 
Senate to hear. 

By the evidence of Tacitus then, in thofe two chapters of the fourth 
book, it appears that the Senate had a further hearing of fome of the 
afyla deputies the following year—and, that they were, even then, 
pofiefied of the power of difeufiing all points.—Flow much longer 
they exercifed this privilege let us proceed to enquire. 

1 hat Tiberius is not likely to have revoked his voluntary concefiion 
before the end of the year 778 is plain, by what Tacitus fays, iv. 43, 
pf the decificn of the Senate concerning the difputed right of the 




\ 


/ 


163 

When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire? 

temple of Diana Limenatidis—De jure templi Diana? Limenatidis.—■ 
The difpute, it fhould be obferved, arofe between the Lacedaemonians 
(who, Suetonius fays, iii. 6, were under the protection of the Clau- 
dian family,) and the Meflenians—but, notwithstanding that, the 
Senate decided in favor of the Meflenians. 

Again—That Tiberius is not likely to have revoked his voluntary 
conceflion to the Senate, before the year 779—or, juft before he re¬ 
tired from Rome, is plain from what Tacitus fays, iv. 55, 56—viz—• 
that the Senate took it upon them to decide in what municipality of 
Afta the temple, decreed two years before to Tiberius, fhould be 
built.—This, it fhould be obferved, they did, though Tiberius had, 
in the mean time, refufed a fimilar requeft from the people of Spain. 

Laftly—That Tiberius could not have abolifhed all the afyla in the 
empire before the end of the year 780 is plain from what Tacitus 
fays, iv. 67—viz—that Tiberius was reported to have fet fome to 
perfuade Agrippina and Nero (who, as Paterculus* and Plinyf fay, 
were in cuftody for endeavouring to raife a fediiion at Rome,) to take 
refuge at a famous ftatue of Auguftus in the forum.j;—ultroque ftrue- 
bantur, qui monerent perfugere ad Germanise exercitus. vel celeber- 
rimo fori effigiem divi'Augufti ampleCli, populumque ac fenatum 
auxilio vocare. 

. v 

* ii. 130. 

• ^ 

t viii. 40. 

$ 

± That this statue of Augustus was, by Tiberius, allowed to protect delia- 
quents, late in hi/reign, may be inferred from what Suetonius says, iii. 38— 

v i z _paullatim hoc genus calumnizc eo processor, ut haec quoque capitalia, 

essent: circa simulacrum Augusti servum cecidisse, &c, > 


Ff 2 




164 


When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire f 


Let us now hear what the fcriptures fay of this matter—Mofes, 
fays the old teftament, eftablifhed afyla—now, whatever he eftablifhed 
was, as Jofephus informs us, fecuted by mutual compaCt at the de- 
pofition of Archelaus, when the Jews voluntarily requefted to be 
governed, in political matters, by the Roman laws—their religious 
laws were preferved ever after by Auguftus and by Tiberius inviolate. 
They were alfo indulged by the Romans with the molt extraordinary 
privilege of demanding yearly, of their Roman governor, the releafc 
of a notorious malefactor, though (as Tacitus obferves of thofe delin¬ 
quents who were protected by moft of thofe other afyla,) a Rate pri- 
foner, who had caufed a fedition and in it had committed murder 
This privilege they always enjoyed under Pilate, and, in the 14th year 
of Tiberius, they compelled him to do as he had ever done, and, to 
releafe to them one whom he had imprifoned as the leader of fedition, 
and in preference to one who, Pilate was convinced, was quite inno« 
cent of any crime.—Confequently as this privilege of the moft dan¬ 
gerous tendency was then continued, why fhould we not conclude 
that Tiberius had not, when our Lord was crucified, abolifhed all the 
afyla in the empire ? 


Let us now, in order to obtain a little more fatisfaCtion on this 
point, confult Suetonius : 

Suetonius, we have obferved, fpeaks of the abolition of afyla in 
the 37th chapter.—In the preceding part of that chapter he fpeaks ffjf' 
popular tumults, and of the great care which Tiberius took to fupprefs 
them—viz—by ftationing guards all over Italy—and, by collecting 
the body guards at Rome—and, in the part following, he fpeaks 
of the inhabitants of Cyzicum being deprived of their freedom of 
Rome.—Now Dion, we find, has, 1 . 57, p. 619, D., placed thofe 
two events in the year 777.—In this then either Suetonius or Dion 


/ 


165 


When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire? 

appears, by what has been already faid of this matter, to be wrong. 
Again—Suetonius, we obferve, in the 36th chapter, mentions the 
expulfion of the Jews, Egyptians, and fuch like fe&aries from Rome— 
why then fhould we not fuppofe that the expulfion of the Jews, &c. 
preceded, and but a fhort time, the abolition of the afyla ? 

Let us now then look out for a period before which it feems likely 
that Tiberius mufl have done it. 

The Talmud of Jerufalem, we find, fays, that judgment was taken 
from Ifrael in the 16th year of Tiberius, that is, as is commonly fup- 
pofed, all power of life and death, but, as we fuppofe, only that of 
ftoning the Jewifh believers, as blafphemers.—Now if Tiberius, in the 
16th year of his reign, forbad the Jews to ftone their believing 
brethren, as blafphemers, why fhould we not fuppofe that he did, be¬ 
fore he took from them this imagined right, revoke what was only a 
gratuitoufly conceded privilege?—Would it not have been altogether 
unaccountable, if Tiberius fhould have permitted the Jews to retain 
any indulgence, efpecially one of fo extraordinary a nature, and fo 
dangerous to the Roman Rate, after they had prefumed to ufurp 
fo ftrange a power as that of ftoning to death their believing country¬ 
men. 

Tiberius then appears to have abolifhed all the afyla between the 
14th and 16th year of his reign—that is, about the time when he 
ordered condemned criminals not to be immediately executed—and, 
about the time when the Senate expelled from Rome the Jews and 
fuch like fe&aries. 

» 

Having now endeavoured to fatisfy ourfelves concerning the year in 
which Tiberius abolifhed all the afyla—let us next, as was propofed, 
endeavour to fatisfy ourfelves alfo why he did it. 




166 


r 

When and why did Tiberius abolish all the asyla in the empire ? 

As then Tiberius appears, in the year 775, to have permitted the 
Senate to enquire into the privileges of the afyla in moft of the eaftern 
countries, and to correct the abufes to which they were perverted, 
(of which the chief was, as Tacitus fays, the prote&ion of ftate delin¬ 
quents)—and to continue the exercife of their ancient right till the 
year 781.—Why fliould he, who, as Tacitus fays, was for nothing fo 
anxious as to let every thing remain as it was; and, who, as Jofephus 
fays, would hardly take the trouble to order a man, who had been 
accufed of confpiring againft him, to be imprifoned, have, without 
fomc very cogent reafon, prefumed to revoke an indulgence which he 
had freely granted to the Senate, and, as Tacitus fays, by way of 
confirming his own defpotifm; and then to abolifh all thofe afyla 
which the Senate had eftablifhed, not excepting even the Jewifh in¬ 
dulgence ?—If indeed, he reftored this privilege to the Senate, as 
Tacitus fays, by way of confirming his defpotifm, would he, without 
a fufficient provocation, have prefumed to take it from them again ? 
Would it, in that cafe, not have been better not to have reftored it ? 
Did he then notice fome very great abufe in any of them which the 
Senate ought to have corrected r—If fo what could that have been, 
but the abufe of the Jewifh, in the cafe of our Lord?—when, we find, 
a feditious perfon and a murderer was fuffered to efcape with impu- . 
nity, and an innocent perfon put to death in his ftead. 

But if Tiberius, after having permitted the Senate to take cognizance 
of the abufes to which the afyla were generally perverted, found him- 
felf compelled, by their connivance at the greateft poflible abufe of an 
afylum, to revoke his former conceflion, does it not feem to imply that 
fome difagreement took place between them from that time ?—And, 
efpecially, if Tiberius, at the fame time, and for the fame reafon, forbad 
immediate executions ?—This we hope to afcertain in the next chapter. 


167 



Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 

StRABO, who it appears by what he fays, vi. p. 199, wrote in 
the year 772—and, by what he fays, vi. p. 199, juft before the death 
of Germanicus (for Germanicus and Drtifus, he there fays, were ftill 
the lieutenants of Tiberius— virxpyZvns )—and therefore in the 5th or 
6th year of Tiberius, after having told us, in the preceding part of the 
laft mentioned paftage, how much more peace and plenty mankind 
enjoyed after they came under the dominion of Auguftus, than they 
did, at any time, before, proceeds to fay that they enjoyed the fame 
under his fucceflor Tiberius, who followed all the rules of government 
jircfcnhed by Aitgufus. — Ov^e norz yav zvrropyaxt too-xvtyis ztpnvns xxt x<p 9 ovixs 
ccyxQtov v'KYipi'z Pco/xxtots, axt rots avix/xx^ots xvruv, o <rnv K xttjxp re 0 IzQx^os 
nrxpzayz'i, xf a vrxpzXxQz ryv zt-ucrixv xvrorzXrit kxi vvv 0 oixos^apitvos ips zxztvov, 
nxpzyzt T Aspios, x.xvovx rv)S lUotycrtcrzus , x.xt ruv isposxy^xxruv isotaixzvos zkzivov 
xxt avrov 01 7 txiozs xvra, Yzp[xxvtx.os re x.xt Apvtros, virxpytsvTzs r u 7 Txrpt.-— 

And thofe rules prefcribed by Auguftus, we may fuppofe he followed, 
till the end of Strabo’s days—that is. at leaft, as we are informed by 











168 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

Cafaubon, his interpreter, till the 12th of Tiberius.—And, if we may 
believe Tacitus, Ann. i. 77, ii. 65, iv. 37—and, again, in his life of 
Agricola, 13, Tiberius never after deviated from the line pointed out 
by his predeceflor—excepting only in refuting divine honors himfelf— 
and, in abolifhing all the afyla in the empire. 

Seneca, in hisConfol. ad Marc., 15, which he wrote after the death 
ofCordus, who died u. c. 778, reckons Tiberius as not inferior to 
Auguftus, or, rather as the greateft of great men.—And, in his dc 
Benef., ii. c. 7, he fays, that Tiberius affifted feveral pafl praetors, 
whofe income was not fufficient to enable them to live refpe&ably, 
with money fufficient for that purpofe.—And, iii. 26, he fays, that, at 
the time, when the rage of accufing was fo very great—that is, as we 
fuppofe, u. c. 781, the Senate encouraged accufations againft thofe 
who, in compliance with his own decree, refufed to worffiip him; 
and even fat in judgement on Pauli us, a praetor, though he was accu- 
fed of nothing more than of having, when intoxicated, polluted an 
effigies of him which he wore on his ring. 

Paterculus feems to intimate, ii. 126, that the Senate had, either 
before, or, in the year 783, difagreed among themfelves—and, that 
Tiberius was then fo far from being difpofed to widen the breach, 
that he had been the means of reconciling their mutual animofities—— 

and, of increafing their dignity—fummota difeordia curia_acceffit 

fenatui majeftas.—-And what does Paterculus feem to fay was the 
refult of this pacific difpofition of Tiberius?—fcil—Such an unirerfal 
and profound peace as was never known before—Quando, fays he, a 
little after, pax laetior ?—Pax Augufta in omnes, &c.—He alfo fays, 
c. 129, that Tiberius had, before the 16th year of his reign, enabled 
many fenatorials to recover their dignity—Quotiens populum congia- 




169 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 

riis honoravit, fenatorumque cenfum, cum id fcnatu auttore facere 
Jiotuit , quam libenter explevit; ut neque luxuriam invitaret, neque 
honeftam paupertatem pateretur dignitate deftitui ? 

V. Maximus fcems to fay, ix. 11, that the fame undifturbed manner 
of tranfa&ing public and private bufinefs continued both before and 
after the death of Sejanus.—Itaque flat pax—valent leges—fincerus 
privati ac Jiublici officii tenor fervatur. 

Philo fays, p. 769, that the profound peace which prevailed every 
where on the acceflion of Caius was the refult of the prudent govern¬ 
ment of Tiberius—and, p. 780, F., that no king or autocrat was more 
venerable in his old age—and again, p. 783, F., that he enjoyed the 
blefiings of peace to the end of his days. 

To the evidence of thofe feveral cotemporary writers on this point, 
may be added that of Suetonius, and Jofephus, and Dion. 

Suetonius has related feveral things which tend to imprefs us with 
the idea that no caufe of difagreement could, at any time, have exifled 
between Tiberius and the Senate.—But of any notorious difagreement 
between them he fays not a word.—Chapter 28, 29, he relates what 
he faid, on feveral occafions, of the freedom of debate—and, lafl of 
all, what he faid to all the fenators on this fame point—Dixi et nunc 
et faepe alias P. C. bonum et falutarem principem, quern vos tanta et 
tarn libera poteflate inflruxiftis Senatui fervire debere, et univerfis 
civibus faepe, et plerumque etiam fingulis: neque id dixifle me pcenitet, 
et bonos et aequos ct faventes vos habui dominos, et adhuc habeo.— 
Chapter 47, he relu&antly acknowledges what Paterculus, we have 
juft feen, afterts Tiberius often did for reduced patricians.—And, chap. 
67, he alfo informs us that lie cautioned them not to be forward to 




Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

fwear to obferve the future a&s of any one—Similem fe femper fui 
futurum: nec unquam mutaturum mores fuos, quandiu mentis fame 
fuiflet: fed exempli caufa cavendum, ne fenatus in a&a cujufdam 
obligaret, qui aliquo cafu mutari poflet.—Chapter 31, he fays, that 
Tiberius was, on two or three queltions, outvoted—and, that he was 
not, in the leaft, difpleafed at it—ne queftus quidetn eft.—Chap. 33, 
he, it muft be confefled, feems to apprife us that Tiberius controled 
the debates of the Senate much, and, that he even annulled one or 
two of their decrees—for he there fays, that he, at firji , only annulled 
their decrees when they were manifeftly wrong—Ac primo eatenus 
interveniebat ne quid perperam fieret. Itaque et conftitutiones qual- 
dam fenatus refcidit.—which, furely, feems to imply that he, after¬ 
wards, took much greater liberties with the Senate.—But where does 
v « • 

Suetonius fpeak of the liberties which he took with the decrees of the 
Senate ?—May we not exped to find, in the fequel, fome account 
both of the liberties which Tiberius took of this kind, and of the re- 
monftrances of the Senate ?—Not a word, can we perceive, has he 
faid of either of thofe points—unlefs, he may be fuppofed to have 
alluded to the former by what he fays, 37, of the abolition of all the 
' afyla—and, 26, of the refufal of Tiberius of divine honors.—Laftly, 
chapter 37, he fays how careful he was to preferve the public peace 

from being difturbed by either domeftic or foreign enemies. 

* 

Jofephus, A. xviii. 4, defcribes him as having been ready to oblige 
a fenator at any time before the expulfton of the Jews—and, as having 
been, after that time, remarkably inattentive to the moft interefting 
concerns—and, alfo, as having, when he might have lived in quiet, 
diftraded himfelf about futurity. 

Dion, 1 . 57, p. 606, B. C. D. E., relates how very modeftly Tiberius 
behaved, on all occafions, and efpecially in the Senate, till the death 


7 


in 

> * \ 

Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 

of Germanicus—and, p. 607, A., how he would not fuffer them to 
add refs him by any other appellation than that of prefident, and, how 
often he ufed to fay—A laitorw fjctv ruv Stshuv 0cvT0x.pa.rup ruv rpocriuTuv 
rZv \onruv trpoxpiros tipu. —Again, he fays, 1 . 57, p. 608, B. C., that 
Tiberius expended very little on himfelf, very much on the republic— 
much on foreign Hates and individuals—and that he enriched many 
fenators who were reduced to poverty •—tuv te (ouhsvruv avyvtss TrfVO^XfVK? 

*loci ijwxsti /x>jSe (0uXw£iv $ioc TtsT tQz'kcvTxs, t'uXuTUTiv .—Dion alfo fays, 1. <j8, 
p. 623, B., that the Senate, in the year 782, or the 15th or 16th of 
Tiberius, ufed to fend delegates to him from their body—and, C., 
that he, in the next year, 783, received their delegates, headed by 
Gallns, with the greatefl cordiality. 

On reconfidering what thofe feveral writers have faid of the con¬ 
duct of Tiberius, in various parts of his reign, towards the Senate, 
and of his endeavours to preferve the peace of the republic, both in- 
ternally and externally, who can think that he, at any time, difagreed 
greatly with mofl of the Senate and for no aflignable reafon—and, 
efpecially, during his refidence at Caprece?—And, when he was over¬ 
come with exceflive grief?—And yet Tacitus, we find, who fays, that 
he was particularly revered by the Senate till the beginning of 781, 
alfo fays, that he did difagree with the Senate in that year, and mod 
inconceivably, and without acquainting us with the reafon.—He 
moreover feems to fay that this difagreement continued till the deatjr 
of Sejanus. 

Let us be a little careful in noticing what Tacitus fays of the beha¬ 
vior of Tiberius and the Senate towards each other, immediately 
before this breach happened, in hope of being able to difcover what 
may have been the caufe of it. 

G g 2 

\ 

• ' / 

\ 


I 


172 

Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

He, we find, has recorded feveral inftances of the mutual amity of 
Tiberius and the Senate, in the courfe of the year 780.—Tiberius, he 
fays, was, in that year, all beneficence, and, the Senate all gratitude. 
He alfo fays, that Tiberius, in the former part of that year, fhewed 
not the leafl fign of fear or fufpicion, for when the fire had confumed 
a, great part of Mount Coelius, Tiberius, fays he, quite unfolicited, 
fent for the fufferers and relieved them—famaque apud populum, quia 
fine ambitione, aut [iroximorum Jirecibus y ignotos etiam et ultro accitos 
munificentia juverat.—By a fubfequent report of Tacitus (67) Tiberius 
muft have returned from Campania to do this—but, by that of Sueto¬ 
nius, iii. 40, he muft have returned from Capreae to do it.—However, 
in either cafe, he, it feems, muft, at that time, have been quite un- 
difturbed by any apprehenfion for his fafety.—Towards the conclufion 
of that year he, fays Tacitus, iv. 67, having finifhed all that he had 
to do in Campania, retired to Capreae, full of fufpicions, and of a 
temerity to believe.—Why, if the people and the Senate had been fo 
recently obliged by him, and had exprefied their obligations fo openly, 
he ftiould have tormented himfelf with fufpicions of any kind, we 
cannot conceive—and, what he could have meant by a temerity of 
believing we do not attempt to difeover.—Tacitus feems to hint that 
thofe fufpicions and this temerity of believing had fome fort of a re¬ 
ference to the condudt of Agrippina and Nero, whom, he feems to 
fay, Tiberius had then imprifoned.—But Paterculus, who wrote at 
the time, and addrefled his work to one of the then confuls, who, a 
little more than five years after, married Julia, one of the daughters 
of Agrippina,* informs us, iii. 130, that Tiberius was compelled to 
grieve, to be indignant, to blufh, on their accounts.—And Plinv, 
viii. 40, feems to render his report credible. 


* Tac. Aim. vi. 15. 


173 


\ 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

Again—In the beginning of the year following—viz—781, Tacitus 
relates another remarkable inftance of the devotcdnefs of the Senate 
to Tiberius—an inftance, which, if true, as he reports it, muft render 
it ftill more furprifing that Tiberius lhould, at the time, have enter- 
tained any fufpicions about the difaffe&cdnefs of any of his fubje<fts. 

It is the ftrange ftory of the miferable end of Titius Sabinus, a knight, 
and the almoft only remaining adherent of the family of Germanicus, 
who, in the year 777, had been, with C. Silius, a man patronized by 

1 

Tiberius,* arraigned for treafonable pra&ices, in favor of that family. 
This Sabinus, fays Tacitus, had been again fo imprudent as to fuffer 
himfelf to be decoyed into a repetition of his former offence.—Four of 
the Senate, fays he, fufpefting his difloyalty, contrived to draw him 
into a converfation about Tiberius and his treatment of the family of 
Germanicus, and, taking the advantage of what fell from him, lodged 
an accufation of treafon againft him.—The reft of the Senate, on 
hearing the charge, immediately proceeded to pafs fentence on him, 
and, on the fame day, to execute him.—Tiberius, fubjoins he, thanked 
them for what they had done, and complained that his life was in 
danger, that he fufpe£led the confpiracies of his enemies—adje&o, 
trepidam ftbi vitam, fufpe&as inimicorum iniidias.—And what if he 
was afraid his life was in danger, and that he fufpefted the confpiracies - 
of his enemies?—Why fhould he have complained of it to the Senate? 
Had he not, as Dion fays, 1 . 57, p. 606, C., privy counfellors ?— 
Who could have thought that Tiberius would, fo very foon after his 
voluntary trip from Capreae to Fidenne, and there making himfelf lo 
very acceftible to all, have uttered fuch a complaint ?—Or, after 
having rendered himfelf fo very popular to all the people of Rome, 
and to the Senate, by his beneficence to the fufFerers by fire on Mount 
Ccelius? 

* Paterculus ii. 130. 

\ * * 


I 


174 

Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

In the courfe of the fame year, fays Tacitus, iv. 74, the Senate, on 
account of fome unaccountable internal alarm, (which he reprefents 
as having been infinitely greater than that caufed by the revolt of the 
Frifii) fought to obtain, by adulation , the interference of Tiberius.— 
But what was the caufe of this internal condernation he, it feems, 
though he complains of a want of materials to write about, does not 
fay.—He only leaves us to conclude that Tiberius himfelf, an exile 
as he then was, and the flave of indolence and vice, and worn out 
with age and grief, could alone counteract it.—But what caufe of in¬ 
ternal alarm could have terrified thofe who fmiled at all terrors ?— 
And, at a time too, when only the extremity of the empire was dif- 
turbed ?—Or could have been of fueh a nature as to make the confcript 
fathers think of nothing elfe but of offering incenfe to a woe worn old 
man, who had retired from the buftle of government in difguft, and 
and was then living far away in obfcurity?—And then, on finding that 
he did not perceive the fragrance of their precious oblation, as to 
make them think of fending petition after petition to him to requed 
an interview ?—Not at Rome, but, if he chofe, far off on the coafl 
of Campania ?—And then again, finding their petitions difregarded, 
as to make them refolve on fending a deputation to him, confiding, 
not of one or two of the principal people of Rome, but of men of all 
ranks, and modly of the commonalty—of whom a large party at¬ 
tended—magna pars plebis.—Thofe were all the partifans of Sejanus 
—anxii erga Sejanum.—And this lad dep, our hidorian intimates, the 
Senate took, without being fure whether thofe delegates would be 
permitted to have accefs to him, though that, it feems, was to be 
their grand objeCl—crebrifque precibus cfjlagitabant, vifendi fui co- 
piam facerent.—This numerous motley party, fays he, proceeded 
from Rome, in commotion as it then was, and uncertain as it then 
was what was the objeCf of the commotion, without any affurance of 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

being permitted to fee Tiberius, or even their idol Sejanus, and with¬ 
out any hope of accommodation for the night, to the coaft of Cam¬ 
pania.—When they arrived there they remained a day and a night in 
the open air, when they were given to underftand that all their en¬ 
deavours to obtain an interview would be of no avail, and that it was 
expeCted they would remain there no longer.—This made moft of 
them return, as, it feems, they went, in trepidation.—Some few, how¬ 
ever, were, it feems, permitted to have a tranfitory fight of, at leaft, 
one of their objefts, but whether Tiberius or Sejanus he does not fay. 
Thofe few, fays he, were fo mal-apert* that they (notwithftanding 
the feene of mifery which they had juft left, and to which they were 
immediately about to return,) rejoiced at their fuperior good luck.— 
But, fubjoins Tacitus, they foon paid dear for their ill-timed exulta¬ 
tion. 

This is the account which Tacitus, who complains that to record 
what happened in the reign of Tiberius, was, as it was fo very barren 
of interefting events, but an inglorious talk, has thought proper to give 
us of this, as he fays, internal pavor, which, he fays, difturbed fo 
unexpectedly and fo unaccountably the peace of Rome, and of that 
city only, after the execution of Sabinus, in the 14th year of Tiberius. 
A confternation ©f which Caius, the fucceflor of Tiberius, if we may 
believe Suetonius, does not feem to have been aware—for he, fays 
Suetonius, iv. 31, complained that his reign, was not likely to be ren¬ 
dered memorable by any remarkable occurrence, as thofe of his two 
predeceflbrs had been—that of Auguftus having been rendered memo¬ 
rable by the defeat of Varus—and that of Tiberius, not by this inter¬ 
nal terrific phenomenon, but the fall of the Amphitheatre at Fidenae. 
And a confternation which feems to have affe&ed neither Seneca nor 


* Male, a!acres. 


176 


\ 

Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 

Pliny in any remarkable degree—for the former, though he has taken 
notice of the death of Sabinus, yet he fays not a word of the internal 
alarm which took place at Rome immediately after.—And the latter, 
in his Confol. to Marcia for the lofs of Cordus and Metilius, which, 
it feems, he wrote three entire years after the death of Cordus, who, 
Tacitus fays, iv. 34, died no one knows how long after the year 778 
was begun, and therefore, no one knows how long after the year 781 
was begun, but before the death of Livia, fays—that Ihe had not feen 
any public or private calamity—nulla publica clades confpicitur, nulla 
privata. 

As this report of Tacitus then feems, by the manner in which he 
has related it, to be not a little queflionable—and, by the account of 

1 •* ,** - ? 

Caius, Pliny, and Seneca the elder, to be not very credible.—Let us 
proceed to enquire if he may not, by his acknowledged prejudice on 
a certain point, have been induced to make a falfe reprefentation of a 
moll notorious event which happened in the courfe of this very year. 

It Ihould be recolle£led that he had, before Ann. i. 73, as good as 
promifed us to let us know how Tiberius had, with exquifite craft, 
favored the irruption of a moll grievous pell—and how it had been 
lliortly after reprelled, by, no doubt, fome other power—and, how it 
then again blazed forth, notwithllanding all oppolition, and hurried 
away every thing—and, all this, he promifed to let us know in the 
cafe of two Roman knights.—Have we not then fome what like a 
reafon to fufpefl that he means here to fulfill his promife ?—In what 
of year the reign of Tiberius can we think it likely to have happened, 
if not in this ?—What but this moll grievous pell could have caufed 
this moll extraordinary pavor ?—And what could this moll grievous 
pell have been but the execrable fuperllition, which, he fays, A. xv, 
was alfo, for the /,irefent , reprelled ?—And then burft forth, not only 


177 


* 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

hi Judea, but in the city too?—Does not Seneca, the elder, appear 
to advert to this very thing in his work againft fuperftition, by fpeak- 
ing of the pra&ice of that mod impious of people, who had, after 
they had been conquered, vanquiftied their antagonifts ?—And does 
not his fon too appear to allude to it both in his cviii. epiftle and in 
his work de Benef. ?—In the former work, he, we have feen, fpeaks 
of the facred rites of foreigners being difeufied—and, in the latter, of 
the frequent and almoft public rage of accufers having, in the reign 
of Tiberius, wafted the Roman ftate worfe than any civil war. 

By comparing this account of Tacitus with thofe other two in the 
fame work (the laft of which evidently deferibes the bad efFeCts which 
followed the introduction of the Chriftian religion into Rome,) and 

with thofe of the two Senecas, why fhould we not fufpeCt that they 

\ 

all allude to the fame event—viz—the introduction of Chriftianity 
into Rome, which, we have found, began to be preached in the 14th 
year of Tiberius—the very year in which, Tacitus fays, this unac¬ 
countable panic feized the inhabitants of that city. 

.1 

As this then appears to have been, in all probability, the faCt, let 
us attend to what one or two early Chriftian writers fay of the year 
when the faith of Chrift was firft publifhed at Rome, and of the re¬ 
ception which it then obtained there and a year or two after. 

Clemens, of Rome, fays, in each of his works—viz—in his Recog., 
his Horn., and his G. P., that the report of our Lord’s miracles and 
refurre&ion reached Rome in the fpring of the year in which he 
fuffered—that frelh accounts continued to arrive every day—that 
what they had heard was, at laft, rendered certain by the arrival of 

H h 


1 


178 

Why and when Tiberius zvas afraid to enter the Senate . 

\ 4 

duly accredited witnefies.—’This, it fhould be obfcrved, is no more 
than what might be expe£ted, as Luke, we find, fays, A&s ii. 10, 
that there were at Jerufalem, at the Pentecofl, next after the afcen- 
fion, “ flrangers of Rome, Jews, and Profelytes”—and, as, we find, 
he alfo fays, A£ts vi. 9, that there was a fynagogue appropriated at 
Jerufalem to the ufe of the libertines.—Clemens alfo fays, and in each 
of thofe works, that the faith was, in the courfe of that fummer, 
preached at Rome, in the forum, by Barnabas, and that fo great was 
the oppofition which was made to him, on that account, that he was, 
before the winter came on, obliged to withdraw from Rome, and to 
retire into his own country. 

This mod remarkable event then, in the 14th year of Tiberius, 
Tacitus, if he does not mean to allude to it by this internal panic, 
which he fo obfcurely and unfatisfa&orily defcribes, entirely overlooks. 
As then this event appears to have happened in the 14th year of Tibe¬ 
rius and to have been the caufe of much diflention, among the popu¬ 
lace, in that year, how are we to be fure that it may not have been 
the caufe of pretty nearly as much between Tiberius and the Senate ? 
And, of courfe, of the retirement of Tiberius to Caprese, and of that 
immenle cavalcade to the coaft of Campania, in order to get a light 
of him—and of his refufing to grant them an interview?—What other 
event could have made him, who, but the year before, haftened from 
Campania, if not from Caprese, to Fidenae and Rome, to afliit the 
fufferers in each of thofe places, (and thofe of Rome un-afked,) and 
who had accepted the thanks of the Senate and of the people for his 
very beneficent conduct on thofe two occafions, to be fo very deaf to 
all their Applications now?—Efpecially if any thing like a tumult was 
likely to enfue ?—Are we not told by Suetonius, c. 37, that he, in 
the 10th year of his reign, took all poflible care to, prevent tumults, 


179 v 

Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

by Rationing the praetorian cohorts at Rome?*—And are we not told, 
by the fame writer, c. 65, that he was, even after the death of Seja- 
nus, fo fearful of tumults, that he even ordered fome veflels to be in 
waiting to take him to fome other country ?—In fhort—what other 
event but this, could, if the Senate and the people were fo very ob- 
lequious to him, on two occafions, in this very fame year, have made 
him afraid of his enemies?—-That this very eventjdid, foon after it 
took place, make a very wide breach between Tiberius and the Senate* 
why fhould we not conclude from what Tertullian faid in the apology 
which he delivered to the emperor Severus, in favor of the Chriftians 
of his days, chapter 5. 

In that apology Tertullian fays— £< There was an ancient ftatute, 
“ that no God fhould be confecrated by the king, unlefs the Senate 
“ confented to it. Marcus iTmilius applied to them about his idol 

“ Alburnus.Tiberius therefore, in whofe reign the name of 

“ Chriftians was firft known in the world, on a report being made to 
“ him, from Paleftine, of this deity, communicated it to the Senate, 
“ in fuch a manner as to convince them that he was prejudiced in 
“ favor of the deity; but the Senate, not approving it, rejefted the 
“ propofal ; but he remained of the fame perfuafion, threatening peri- 
<c culum to the accufers of Chriftians.” — Now if the Senate had not 
encouraged the accufers of Chriftians, why fhould Tiberius have 

* Dion says, 1. 57, p. 619, D., that Tiberius, u. c. 777, in order to over¬ 
awe the people of Rome, collected the guards, which before that time used 
to be dispersed all over Italy, into one body at Rome. —sv ePSv t£ tots 0 T<(Te* 
pios tvv tu ciopvQopxxu yv^vxa-ixv rots (jhXivtoLis, (camp xyvouai r *v tivvxpuv xvruv, 
£7r<0£/i?£v, 07 reus y.a.i 7roXAar <r$xs kxi tppuy.tvas e i^ovres, [axXXov ixvtov tyoGutrxi.~— 
Tacitus, iv. 2, says nearly the same. 


H h 2 





180 


\ 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

thought of threatening them with any fort of punifhment ?—Some of 
our moderns have thought that Tertullian muft have erred in this 
matter, fo incredible does his report appear to them!—That he fhould 
have adopted this report on mere rumour is not likely—efpecially, 
if, as Eufebius fays, Eccl. hifl. ii. 2, he was a man mofl learned in the 
Roman laws, and otherwife famous, particularly for his knowledge of 
Roman concerns.—That he fhould have aflerted it at Rome, before 
an emperor, in the courfe of the fecond century—and, on fuch an 
occafion, if it was not a well-known fa£t, is what nobody can believe; 
and, that he fhould have recorded his having aflerted it on that occa¬ 
fion, if it was not an acknowledged fa&, is what no Chriftian will 
believe.—Why then fhould our moderns not believe it ? 

In what year of Tiberius this diflention, concerning the dignity of 
our Lord, and oppofition concerning his followers, took place between 
Tiberius and the Senate, Tertullian does not fay; but that it took 
place before the expulflon of the Jews from Rome—that is, as Philo 
fays, before the death of Sejanus—or, before the expiration of the 
17th year of Tiberius, why fhould we doubt? 

Prefently after the death of his mother, this fuperannuated monarch, 
fufpicious of his enemies, as, Tacitus fays, iv. 67, he always had been, 
and fearful of any attempt on his life, as, he alfo fays, iv. 71, he then 
was, and fo, as Suetonius fays, 65, continued to be three years after; 
no longer, fays Tacitus, v. 3, adhered to thofe very excellent meafures 
of policy, which he had, till then, religioufly followed; but, as if re¬ 
leafed from reflraint by the death of his mother, began to be lawlefs 
and oppreffive—Ceterum ex eo, proerupta jam et urgens dominatio— 
to the great aflonifhment and terror of all ranks of people, no doubt. 
But though Tacitus tells us that Tiberius, after the death of his 
mother, began inflantly to be fo very lawlefs and oppreflive, yet he 


» 


181 


* 


' ✓ 

\ 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 


alfo, we find, and, to our no little aftomfhment, tells us, v. 2, that 
Fufius, one of the then confals, who had been patronifed by Livia, 
ufed, immediately after her death, to divert the confcript fathers with 
farcaftic fallies againfi Tiberius—is gratia Auguftae fioruerat aptus alli- 
ciendis faeminarum animis; dicax idem, et Tiberium acerbis facetiis 
irridere folitus, quarum apud praepotentes in longum memoria eft.— 
But what have we here?—Fufius, the conful, who had been fo much 
indebted to Livia for his preferment, notwithftanding he knew what 
had happened to Saturninus and Sabinus for a fimilar offence—not¬ 
withftanding he had been fo terrified but a few months before by the 
internal alarm, and had been obliged to return from Campania in 
trepidation—notwithftanding he knew how domineering and oppref- 
five the government of Tiberius was become—notwithftanding he 
could not have been conful but by the favor of Sejanus—notwith¬ 
ftanding all this, ufed to make the confcript fathers, who, but a year 
before, had exprefied their gratitude to their prince, who, but a few 
months before, could not extricate themfelves from their political 
terror without his help, and, who, then were obliged to return from 
Campania, in trepidation, merry, when they were allembled on bufi- 
nefs, with laughing at him, though he had always been fo good a 
prince ! though he then was fo aged!! and fo deprefled with grief!!! 
Can this have been pofiible ?—And in the beginning of the year too 
after thofe very fathers had, and by the evidence of four of their own 
body, put to death a knight for only fpeaking againfi him—and, had, 
but a few months before, judged it neceflary to have recourfe to adula¬ 
tion, in order to prevail on Tiberius to remove from them the caufe 
which had fo terrified Rome internally. 

Immediately after the interment of Livia, a letter of accufation, fays 
Tacitus, v. 3, againfi Agrippina and Nero, was fent by Tiberius to the 


\ 



182 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 

Senate, in which, fays he, there was no charge againft them of any 
attempt at innovation—the only thing with which they were each 
charged was, fays he —he of juvenile love and immodefty —fie of 
being haughty: this charge, fays he, the Senate heard with dread and 
fdence.—A few, at lad, of the fervile party, propoled that they fhould 
enter into a debate on thofe articles.—Great altercation enfued on the 
propofal, when, at laft, Junius Rufticus, who was appointed, by Caefar, 
as a fort of recorder of the a&s of the Senate, and who was therefore 
fuppofed to be acquainted with his private views, either by a fatal im- 
pulfe—fatali quodam motu—or, with a bad deflgn—feu prava foler- 
tia—unmindful of imminent danger and fearful of what might not 
happen, put an end to further debate by advifing the confuls not to 
propofe the queftion—and the reafon which he gave for his advice 
was this—dilferebatque brevibus momentis fumma verti /lojfe, dandum- 
que interftitium poenitentiae fenis—v. 4. At the fame time, fays Taci¬ 
tus, the populace furrounded the houfe—and nothing fad was perpe¬ 
trated—patratum—that day.—At the fame time Sejanus, who was 
reported to have been the onfetter of all this, with indignation ex¬ 
claimed that the Senate held the grief of their prince in contempt— 
that the people were become difaffe£led—that new conciones were 
heard and read—new confulta jiatrum —that nothing now remained for 
them but to fly to arms, and to arrange themfelves under the com¬ 
mand of thofe whofe Jiandards they bore. 

Tiberius, not at all difeouraged by all this unexpefted oppofition 
from the Senate and the people, repeated his charge againft his 
daughter-in-law and her fon—reprimanded, by an edi<ft, the popu- 

•A 

lace—complained to the fathers that his imperial majefty had been 
publicly difobeyed by the fineffe of one man—and, demanded the en¬ 
tire exercife of his prerogative.—Nor did they deliberate any further, 




1 




183 


v 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate. 

, . . * 

left they fhould decree, not indeed the extreme, for that was forbid¬ 
den, but left they fhould teftify that they, who were prepared for 
revenge—ad ultionem—were hindered by the power of the prince— 

Nec ultra deliberatum, quo minus non quidem extrema decerne- 

< 

rent, id enim vetitum, fed paratos ad ultionem vi principis impediri 
teftarentur. v 

Here then we perceive was fomething like the beginning of an 
ppen war between Tiberius and the Senate fupported by the people. 
Whether it was then fuppreiTcd and whether it continued any time 
our enigmatift has not been permitted to afford us any information.— 
But if we attend to what Dion fays, 1 . 58, p, 622, A. B., we fhall 
think that we have reafon enough to conclude that this political con- 
ftiT was foon ended—for he there fays, that the Senate were, before 
the end of that year, (782) difpofed to adulate both Tiberius and 
Sejanus, as they did to procure their mediation when the internal 
panic feized them— nperGeis re, i$’x pxev v> ytpacrix, iSix <$s 01 i<n nets, to, re 
'jjXwQos ex re ruv ^vixapvuv xxi ex. ruv xyopxvoixujv rZv rjperepojy irpos xjj.porip<n 
kvtus i 7 rtp. 7 iGv xxi yv/ovro wnep x[xpo7v oixouos, xxi e9vov, xxt rw rv^rjv xvrZv 
Uj/.werxv. 

On the whole—as the writers, who lived under Tiberius, fay not a 
word of any difagreement between him and the Senate, and Paterculus 
•affirms, pofitively, that the Senate had, before the 16th year, differed 
among themfelves, and that Tiberius had, before that year, reconciled 
them to each other—as Suetonius does not fay that any difagreement 
took place between him and that body, before the 16th, and that 
Tiberius, after the fire on Mount Coelius, gave up all concern for the 
republic; and, as Dion fays, pofitively, that the Senate were, in the 
15th year, all adulation—as all this is laid—why fhould we be ex* 




184 


Why and when Tiberius was afraid to enter the Senate . 

pe&ed to believe with Tacitus, that a difagreement between him and 
them began in the 14th year, and was, by the oppofition of the Senate 
to fome important affair, widened in the 15th year, and continued, no 
one knows how much longer, after that ? 


185 





CHAPTER xri. 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

Dion fays, I. 57, p. 607, B., (in which page he continues to 
treat of the tranfaftions of the laft year of Auguftus—viz—u. c. 767,) 
that Tiberius was, in every thing, very popular —xxi aru ye irmruv 
o[aoiujs dviMTixos r,v— and, in particular, becaufe he would not permit 
any thing extraordinary to be done on his birth-day, (16th November) 
nor any one to fvvear by his fortune, and if any one was accufed of 
having fworn falfe by it he took no notice of it.—This he fays in the 
former part of that page, and, in the latter, he, after having repeated 
how popular he was, proceeds to give a {till ftronger inftance of his 
moderation, or, rather of his reverence for the Gods —Txwx ^ 
tikus 'Slum, xxt or; .—For thofe two inftances juft mentioned he obtain¬ 
ed popularity, and for this alfo—he would not permit any fane— 
rs(juvta[jLx —to be then erefted to him -—tote yt srs^viadr ,—nor any Itatue 
to be fet up in honor of him; and moreover, continues Dion, he, im- 








I8tf 


\ 

The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will, 

« 

mediately, finally forbad— xvTncpvs yxp e nxpxyjpr t yt.x xvtyoptvat —any city or 
private perfon to do it—7roAe< ^nr ilium raro voisiv —to this prohibi¬ 
tion he, fays Dion, fubjoined this exception—“ Unlefs I Jhall permit it ” 
— 7rpo<rt6v)Kt /xev yxp m xTroppyasi oti—xv (xv> tyu tnrirpr^u — to all which he, 
continues Dion, fuperadded—“ And that I never will” — 'npoat r rnn:t It 
on—** nrirpt^u .—This prohibition, Dion, it has been obferved, feems 
to intimate, Tiberius publifhed before the confulfhip of Sex. Ap. and 
Sex. Pomp, expired, and therefore it feems to imply that the worfhip 
of Tiberius was, in the year 767, pretty general.—After having faid 
all this, Dion proceeds, immediately after, to tell us what we did not 
expeft to hear—viz—that Tiberius, though popular in every thing, 
was, by fome, treated contumelioufly—and, by others, irreverently— 
and, by others, again worfhipped in defiance of his prohibition; and, 
what we frill lefs expe£ted to hear, that thofe who treated him with 
irreverence were profecuted for it—and that he took not the leaf! 
notice of either the one or the other —tnrti to yt vCpto-Qxi npos nvot, y.xt 
to vio-ArjaQxi TTfos tivos (xas£zix} rt yxp y.xi to toiutov uvo/xx^ov, kxi hxxs tnr 

xvtco TroAAa? tavyov) r t xi^x ’npoTt'noi'iiro .—Dion not only fays all this, but 
he frill proceeds further to fay that Tiberius would not receive any 
written accufation of this fort from any one —tfiv yv tivx toixutw t<p 
ixvtu ypxipw npocnlsl-xTo .—And all this he feems to fay, as Tacitus alfo 
does, ii. 50,* Tiberius did out of refpe£t to Augi^lus —xxnrtp to * 
Avy*rov kxi tv tutu fftfjAvuv, —Dion, at lafl, concludes this paragraph with 
this remark—viz—that though Tiberius was, at firft, fo tolerant of fuch 

m 

offences, yet, in procefs of time, he deflroyed many on that account 

■- ro P** yxp •npUTOV tlltVX not TUIV 111 tXtlVU TIVX XITIXV XxQovTUV tKOXxTtV, xXXx 

kxi tyKXr/Otvrxs tivxs, us kxi sirtupKvmoTus Triv Tvyyiv xvt», X7rt\vat : 7 rpoiovTos le 
rts xpovu, kxi 7 7xw iro'hXtis t^xvxruat. 

1 * 

* Damnarique si qua de Augusto irreligiose dixisset: In se jacta nolle ad 
cognitionem vocari. 



V 


187 

The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

Dion, then we find, here informs us that Tiberius, who, at firft, 
was very popular in every thing, and efpecially for having forbidden 
divine honors to be paid to him, was, notwithstanding his great popu¬ 
larity, calumniated—and, that he paid no attention to it—he alfo in- 

* 

forms us that, notwithltanding he had forbidden any one to worfhip 
him, many perfifted in doing it—and, ftrange to fay, that even thofe 
who, in compliance with his order, would not worfhip him, were 
profecuted for it—and, that, in procefs of time, he himfelf caufed 
very many of thofe who fwore falfely by his fortune, or, of thofe who 
treated his majefty with irreverence, to be put to death for it.—Now 
when does Dion fay Tiberius himfelf began to profecute for this of¬ 
fence r 

He informs us, I. 57, p. 615, E., that Tiberius, as foon as he had 
been, by the death of Germanicus, releafed from all reftraint, became, 
fuddenly, as bad as he had before been good; and, among other a£ts 
of cruelty, profecuted many for doing or faying any thing againft him¬ 
felf or his mother, as well as againft Auguftus, as deities — rx re 7 xp 

xKXx x^pius r/p£e v.xi rxis rvs xaeQeixs ^nexts, ei ris e% ocrov es rov Avya fov, x\>x 
v.xi es xvro > ey.eivov ryv re {j/^repx xvru •npxl-xs n y kxi enrwv xveTrirviueiov eTnx.Ar.Qv) 
uvus ewe&et. 

But what?—Did the Romans begin to worfhip Tiberius almoft 
as foon as he began to reign—and fo generally that he thought it 
neceftary to forbid the practice publicly ?—And, did they perfift in 
fo doing, notwithftanding he fo expreftly forbad it?—If they did fo, 
muft they not, all over the empire, have confidcred him as an ob- 
je£t of great reverence ?—And for what could they have looked up 
to him as a God but, as Philo obferves, for his moft eminent vir- 

Ii 2 



f 


] 88 

j 

The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

tues ?*—And, did this mort eminently virtuous emperor, after having 
rendered himfelf fo very popular on all accounts, and, efpecially, by 
forbidding any one to worfhip him—did he, after having done this, 
in procefs of time, fuffer many to be profecuted and punifhed for 
obeying his own mandate?—And a few years after, put thofe who 
treated his majefty with irreverence to death?—So Dion, we find, fays 
here.—-But what fays he, 1 . 57, p. 617, B., of a praetor, who was, in 
the courfe of the third year after—viz—775, accufed, by fome perfon 
or perfons in the Senate, of having been guilty, either hy word or decd> 
of irreverence towards Tiberius?—He there fays that the praetor im¬ 
mediately left the houfe, and diverted himfelf of his robes of office, 
and then returned again, and pleaded to the accufation as a private 
perfon.—And what fays he of Tiberius?—Does he fay that he put this 
praetor to death ?—He fays, that Tiberius, who was prefent, was ex¬ 
tremely forry for it , and that he would hear no more of it—£ snZs rs 

> 

yXyrKTE, xxt sy.iT avra y \faTo.— This Dion fays in page 617, B., and in 
the next page 618, D., he fays, that Tiberius himfelf, before the 
conclufion of the fame year, ufed to punifh others for neglecting his 
worfhip, when he, at the fame time, ufed to negleCt it too —xxx rara 

iTVVE^XIVEV XVTUy 7TXVTX TE SXEtVX, E<$ OIS THS OtKkXS US XXI XCTeQsvTXS EXoXx^EV, 
X'JTOS ES EXl'TOV 'I7 }^,[AU.e}'eL'/ ) V.OU 7 TpoiTZTl XX1 ^KeVXCT^OV 0<p\t(JXXVElV ——but doeS flC 

* stoi ttxvtes u Txie $tx rocs v7Sxpy(JLEvxs evEpyzaixs iQxvfxx^xcrxv, xxi eti vvv 
Q xvfj.x^ovrxt, xxi ai^oxc^s te xxt tuv xvutotxtu Ttpjiuv x^iuGxtxv. —Philo, ad C. 
777, D. 

tss 0’ upzxs tuv Aiywnuv xxi XxXoxtss, xxt [uxytss, aotpix vivi ctxpicovTxs 
tuv xXXuv, yycfjuivixs xxt n^ys Tuyyjxvitv Ttxpx rots nTpo ypxuv htu cSe xxi tuv 9euv 
evx ixx^ov Tuv yyycn[xuv tivos vjpETyv yevofuEvov, TtfxxaOxi. —Stl'abo, i. 16. 

t Tacitus siys, iii. 70, that I.. Ennius, a knight, was accused, in this same 
year, ot having melted down a silver tjfigies of Cfesar, to make common uten¬ 
sils of it.—And, that Tiberius would not permit the Senate to consider it as 
injury to the republic. 


I 


189 

The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

fay that Tiberius punilhed them with death ? —No, furely.—He only 
fays —us y.ou omtiGuvtxs £ko\oc^v —he chaftifed them as being impious to¬ 
wards himfelf.—This inconftftency, continues Dion, led fome people 

to think that he was belide himfelf-— a<p « KXl IXtvat TtVES OtVTOV T UV 
Vpivuv v 7 ro< 7 rrEvcrxv —but in this, fubjoins he, they were miftaken, for, 
he did almoft every thing elfe well— •rx yap aw% vxw ttxvtx <$tovrus 

SlUX-El. 

In the next book ( 1 . 58) there occur two other paftages illuftrative 
of this point—they refer to the events of the year 784—or, to what 
happened juft before the death of Sejanus, for, in that year, Sejanus 
was put to death.— Let us attend to them too. 

In the firft'Which occurs, p. 623, D., he fays, that the Senate facri- 
ficed to the ftatues of Sejanus, as they did to thofe of Tiberius— 

x.XI T&OS Y.XI TXIS ElKOaiV XVT8, COCTTisp KXl TXIS T8 Tl£ep<ti sQvOV. - And having 

faid this, he abruptly proceeds to fay that many other eminent men 
were deftroyed— ipOxpvo ’***-but for what he does not fay.—-Among 
them, he fays, was C. Rufus Geminius, who had been conful three 
years before—this perfon, he fays, was accufed of irreverence towards 
Tiberius *—xaiQ^ixs yap ts rov T tCepiov EyxAnSs/r— and, like the namelels 
praetor before-mentioned, in the Senate, though without the know¬ 
ledge of Tiberius.—Rufus, by the way of exculpating himfelf, pro¬ 
duced his will, and {hewed them that he had left Tiberius one of his 
executors.—But how could he, by fuch evidence, difprove the charge 
which was brought againft him?—With it, however, the Senate leems 
to have been fatisfied.—For, fays Dion, he was then attacked on the 
{core of effeminacy —kxi ixxXxxtxs ainx 9 sis —and, before fentence was 
pafled on him, he went home, and hearing the quseftor coming with 
it, he deftroyed himfelf. 



190 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

By this then it appears that Tiberius was, notwithftanding his editft 
to the contrary, worfhipped by the Senate—and, that they, without 
confulting him, profecuted others for not worlhipping him.—And, 

notwithftanding all this, he, fays Dion, p. 630, A., refufed to go 

% 

amongft them, even though protected by a party under Regulus. 

Let us now then attend to the laft paflage in which Dion mentions 
human deification—it occurs, p. 626, B., where he fays, that Tiberius 
fent a letter to the Senate concerning the death of Nero, whom he had, 
three years before, accufed, in the Senate, and whofe caufe, (notwi'ch- 
ftanding he, as well as his mother, had, as Paterculus fays, ii. 130, 
been the occafion of much grief, fhame, and indignation to him,) had 
then been, as Tacitus alfo fays, v. 4, in fpite of Tiberius and the 
Senate, by the populace, vindicated with flying banners.—In this letter, 
he did not, as ufual, mention Sejanus with any term of refpedt; and, 
in it, he, glancing at the deification of his prime-minifter, and, per¬ 
haps, that of the Senate too, forbad them to facrifice to any man — 

KXl TFpOO’ETt KXl X'UEl'TIE \AV\T XvSpUTTUV TIVl 6vEa9xi. 

By this evidence of Dion then, as well as by that adduced firft, it 
appears that Tiberius forbad, not only the worfhip of himfelf, but 
that of any man .—And it almoft appears, from the cafe of the praetor 
and of Rufus, that the Senate took it upon them, feveral times, to 
enforce the worftfip of him, contrary to his own inclination.—That 
this was probably the cafe, appears to be rather likely from what Dion 
fays followed in that letter—viz— .^te etu T, exvt* Tig* n xp^ri^aQxi, 

$IOTl TfoXXx EKEtVCO E\f^<£><^£70. TiSTO yXp XWyopsVEt (AZV KXl TrpoTEpov, TOTE <$S 

rov lytxvov X'jsvEvaxTo •—Lo all this Dion fubjoins this remark of his 
own—Tiberius would not permit that to be done to another which 
he would not to himfelf.—But, notwithftanding this prohibition, they, 
as Dion fays, p. 629, D. E., prefently after voted him feveral things, 


191 


The warship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

which he always refufed—viz—the title of father of his country—the 
celebration of his birth-day with ten horfe races—and a fenatorial 
banquet.—All which he again refufed, and again forbad them to vote 
him any fuch thing. 

Let us now hear what Suetonius fays of the time when Tiberius 
forbad any worfhip of himfelf. 

He fays, iii. 58, that Tiberius foon after the death of Auguflus, 
and therefore feveral years before the death of Germanicus, was very 
ilrift in punifhing any irreverence fhewn to the divinity of Auguflus— 
but of his punifhing any one for an offence of that kind againft him¬ 
felf he fays not a word; on the contrary, he fays, iii. 26, that Tibe¬ 
rius, after he was delivered from the fear of competitors, and, therefore, 
we prefume, after the death of Germanicus, forbad the Senate to 
decree him temples, priefts, and hamens.—What?—Does he, indeed, 
fay that Tiberius, after the death of Germanicus , forbad any one to 
worfhip him ?—If fo he flatly contradicts w T hat Dion, as we have juft 
feen, fays, at p. 615, E., for Dion there fays that he then profecuted 
many for doing or faying any thing either againft himfelf or his 
mother, as well as againft Auguftus, as deities.*—Which then are we 
to believe?—Dion, who fays, that Tiberius, in the year 767, forbad 
any worfhip of himfelf, and that he, in the year 772, profecuted 
many for not worfhipping him ? —Or, Suetonius, who fays, that he, 
in the year 772, forbad the Senate to decree him any thing of a reli¬ 
gious nature ?—Let us attend to all that Suetonius fays of this matter, 
in order to fatisfy ourfelves whether he does really aflert that Tiberius 
began to forbid any worfhip of himfelf exaCtly at the time when Dion 
fays he began to profecute others for not worfhipping him. 

\ 

* Does not this imply that Tiberius did not, as Tacitus says, A. i. 72, 
behave disrespectfully to his mother. 















192 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against liis will. 

In the former part of chapter 25 he points out the caufes which 
made Tiberius hefitate to begin his reign ; and then mentions the way 
in which he contrived to fruftrate the expectations of Germanicus, 
who from expecting to be his fucceflor, expected to be his colleague 
—Simulavit et valetudinem, quo aequiore animo Germanicus celerem 
fucceflionem, vel certe focietatem principatus opperiretur.—And, in 
the latter part of that chapter, he proceeds to fay how he quelled the 
feditions and defeated the machinations of Clemens and Libo.— 
Having premifed this in the 25th chapter, he begins the 26th with 
thefe words— Vcrum liberatus metu —which evidently refer to what lie 
had been faying in the 25th, as may be made to appear ftill more 
clearly by adverting to the evidence of Tacitus* and Dion; the latter 
of whom fays, in feveral places of 1. 57,f that Tiberius flood in awe 
of Germanicus, as long as he lived, and, after he was dead, did every¬ 
thing that was bad. 

Suetonius then by— Vcrum liberatus metu —evidently means that he 
did the feveral things mentioned in this chapter after the death of 
Germanicus.—Having now fatisfied ourfelves on this point, let us 
attend to what follows.—Firft, he prefaces his account as Dion, we 
have juft feen, does, with an eulogium on his extreme popularity— 
and then, a little after, he fays, that the Senate were inclined to 
decree him temples, flamens, and priefts—and, that he oppofed it— 
that they would have placed ftatues and images to him among thofe 
of the Gods—and, that he would not permit it to be done.—Yerum 
liberatus metu, civilem admodum inter initia ac paullo minus quam 
privatum egit. Ex piurimis maximifque honoribus, prater paucos et 
modicos non recepit. Natalem fuum, plebeis incurrentem circenfibus, 

* A. vi. 

t p. 606, B., 610, E., 615, D. 




193 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his wilt . 

vix unius bigae adje&ione honorari paffus eft. Templa, Flamines, 
Sacerdotes decerni ftbi prohibuit: etiam ftatuas, atque imagines, nift 
permittente fe poni: permifitque ea fola conditione, ne inter fimu- 
lachra Deorum, fed inter ornamenta aedium ponercntur. 

The fame line of conduct, it appears by what Suetonius fays in the 
next chapter, Tiberius purfued till the year 775—the 8th or 9th of his 
reign.—He begins that chapter thus—Adulationes adeo averfatus eft, 
ut neminem Senatorum aut officii aut negotii caufa ad Ie&icam fuam 
admiferit: confularem vero fatisfacientem ftbi, ac per genua orare 
conantem ita fuffugerit, ut caderet fupinus; atque etiam, Sec. 

Suetonius and Dion then, we find, appear to difagree in their re¬ 
ports concerning the time when Tiberius forbad people to pay him 
divine honors, moft materially.—Suetonius fays that he did it when 
Dion fays he began to profecutc people for not doing it—and Sueto¬ 
nius alfo feems to fay that he continued to difapprove of the practice 
a long while after. 

Let us now fee whether Tacitus appears to agree with either of 
thofe hiftorians refpedting the time when Tiberius prohibited this 
practice to be continued. 

Tacitus, neither fays, with Dion, that Tiberius, in the firft year of 
his reign, forbad any one to worfhip him—nor, with Suetonius, that 
he did fo, in the fifth or fixth.—On the contrary, it appears, by what 

Tiberius faid in the Senate, in the nth year of his reign, when dele- 

■ * 

gates from further Spain applied for permiffion to ere£t a temple to 
him, as thofe of Afia had done tfes fecond year before, that he had 
not then forbad any one to worfhip him; for if he had, would he not, 




m 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

inftead of adverting to the motives which then induced him to ac- 
quiefce—viz—obedience to the example of Auguftus, and refpett to 
the will of the Senate, have much rather have adverted to his prohi¬ 
bition?—And as to the many inflances of compuhion, which, Dion 
fays, he ufed to make people worfhip him, Tacitus, we find, as well 
as Suetonius, is entirely filent.—On that occafion, Tacitus, we find, 
fays, that he, who had before been mighty to defpife honors, and who 
longed for an opportunity to Combat the infinuations of thofe who im¬ 
puted his acquiefcence in the practice to ambition, publicly, in the 
Senate, deprecated a continuance of the pradtice in the following 
fpeech: 

“ I know , confeript fathers, that I am generally accufcd of inconjlancy , 
“ for not having oppofed the cities of Afla when they petitioned for this 
“ very thing.—I fall now therefore acquaint you why I was then Jllent, 
“ and Jay what I mean to do for the time to CGme.—As the deified 
“ Augujlus did not oppofe the founding of a temple to himfelf and to the. 
“ city of Rome , at Pergamos, I, who conjider all his deeds and fayings 
“ as laws , followed a precedent already approved, and , the more willingly, 
“ becaufe to the worfhip of me was annexed that of the Senate—quia 
“ cultui meo veneratio fenatus adjungebatur —And was not his worfhip 
to be conne&ed now with that of the Senate?—This, we have alreadv 
obferved, feems, by the account of Tacitus, not to have been thought 
of, for he only fays—Tiberio matrique ejus.—'Tiberius continued his 
fpeech thus— ii But as my acceptance of that honor once may be excufable , 
“ fo to be adored in every province , as a deity , favors of pride and am - 
“ bition: befides—the rendering this honor common would be to detract 
“from that of Augujlus.—I acknowledge, confcript fathers , that I am 
“ mortal and of like frame as other men—I wifh you to tefliff- and 
“ pofierity to remember it, that I think it enough to hold the chief place 


/ 


195 


•\ 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

fc * among you.——Thofe who come after me will, I hope, believe me to have 
u been worthy of my ancefiors , careful of your affairs, unmoved by dangers, 
“ regardlefs of offences for the public welfare .— Thefe are the temples 
il which I wonld raife in your brcafls—thefe the bef and mofl lafting 
“ images — effigies. — As for the temples and ftatues of ft one, if pofterity 
“ reprobates the conduct of thofe to whom they are dedicated, they are 
(( defpifed as their fepulchres.—I therefore implore our allies and citizens, 
“ all the Gods , bcfeeching thefe to grant me, to the end of my life, a mind 
i( undifturbed, and a thorough knowledge of the laws, human and divine \ 
“ and thofe to celebrate, whenever my diffolution comes, my a ft ions with a 
c< kind remembrance.” 

Such is the report which even Tacitus has made of the fpeech of 
Tiberius, when delegates from further Spain applied to the Senate for 
leave to build a temple to him and to his mother, in the year 778.— 
A fpeech which evidently implies that the pra&ice of worfhipping 
both Tiberius and his mother was then extended all the way from the 
weftern coafts of Spain to Alia Minor—and, that the Senate fan&ioned 
it—and, of courfe, that Tiberius was then in the higheft repute all 
over the empire, though fome, it leems, by the preamble of it, won¬ 
dered that Tiberius permitted it.—A fpeech which implies that he had 
not before, notwithftanding both Suetonius and Dion affirm that he 
had, forbad the practice, and, which does not imply, in any part of 
it, that the Senate were included in the petition of thofe Spaniards. 

To this fpeech of Tiberius, on this memorable occafion, Tacitus 
fubjoins an affiertion of his own—an aflertion which, if true, deflroys 
both his own teftimony in the fequel of his hiftory. as well as that of 
Dion, which we have been juft conlidering—viz—and he perfifted 


Kk 2 





196 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

ever after —pofthac—even in his private conventions, to exprefs his 
contempt of fuch a worfhip of himfelf—to which aftertion he adds 
the feveral opinions of the people on the fubjeft—fome, fays he, at¬ 
tributed his refufal to mo defy —many to a fpirit of ojijiofition —fome 
to littlenefs of mind —but, amongft all, it is not a little remarkable 
that he does not fay that any one derided the abfurdity of worfhipping 
fuch a monfter of lull and cruelty—nor, that fome thought him defi- 
eient in his ufual conftancy, by having negle£ted hitherto to put a 
ftop to it, a remark which, Tacitus fays, he made in the very begin¬ 
ning of his fpeech.—After having obfervea what thofe three claftes of 
the people thought of his conduct in this affair, our hiftorian proceeds 
to prove, by a few examples, how preferable the opinion of thofe who 
imputed his refufal to littlenefs of mind, was to either of thofe of the 
other two.—And to the whole narrative, he, in the laft place, fuper- 
adds a moral refle&ion, of no doubt his own too—viz—Contemptu 
famae, contemni virtutes.—By which, if he did not, in oppofition 
to thofe, who, as Tiberius himfelf obferved in the beginning of his 
fpeech, thought him deficient in his ufual conftancy for having negleft- 

t 

ed fo long to put a flop to it, mean to convey an indirect cenfure on 
the conduft of Tiberius for having, on this occafion, oppofed it, it is 
not eafy to fee what he meant.—But inftead of anfvvering his defign, 
docs it not appear to imply that Tiberius began, about the I ith year 
of his reign and 66th of his age, to defpife virtue ? 

From this fpeech of Tiberius to the Senate, on the application of the 
Spaniards for leave to ereft a temple to Tiberius and his mother, 
u. c. 778—and, in the nth year of his reign, we learn that to his 
worlhip the Aflatics had annexed not only that of the Senate, but 
that of his mother too—and, that he then difclaimed, in the Senate, 
the leaft pretenfton to divine honors* if not that fome blamed him for 


The ivor ship of Tiber ins enforced against his will 

not having oppofed the worth ip of himfelf before—confequently, why 
fliould we not infer, from the former point learnt, that he, as he ap¬ 
pears to have objected only to his own worfhip, had no objection to 
that of his mother—and, from the latter, that he flatly contradi&s 
what both Suetonius and Dion fay of the time when he firft oppofed 
his own deification.—And, by the fubjoined aflertion of Tacitus, we 
alfo learn, that Tiberius ever after perfifled, even in his private con- 
verfations, to exprefs his contempt of the wmrfhip of mart. —Confe- 
quently, w r hy fliould we not infer from this, that Tacitus flatly contra- 
difts not only what Dion fays of the numerous profecutions which he 
inftituted againft people for not worfhipping him ; but alfo what he 

himfelf fays, as we fhall come to fee prefently, in the end of this and 

» 

the next book.—And, laftly, from what he fays of the opinion of one 
clafs of people out of three, we further learn, that he oppofed it out 
of madefy, that is, as appears by his fpeech, out of reverence to the 
deity, as, it fcems, his friends alfo thought.—And confequently why 
fhould we not fuppofe that his mother, three years after, obje&ed to 
her own confecration or immortalization, out of the fame motive— 
namely— madefy. 

I 

But what efFeft does this fpeech feem to have had on the minds of 
the Senate and of the people?—Do they appear to have been deterred 
by it from thinking this mortal man entitled to divine honors 5 — 
Would the Senate confent to have their partnerfhip in divinity dillbl- 
ved ?—If not, how were thofe to a£t who thought that the refufal 
proceeded from a fpirit of oppofition? 

In the fpring of the year following that in which Tiberius objefted 
to the requefl of the Spaniards, and, feemingly, but a few days before 
he went into Campania, that is, in the fpring of the year 779, he, 
fays Tacitus, 55, attended the Senate conflantly—and, for many days 





The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

plures per dies—heard the claims of the inhabitants of feveral cities 
of Alia, who could not agree among themfelves where the temple, to 
the Senate, to himfelf, and to his mother, which they had, three 
years before, obtained permi(lion to build, ought to be built.—And 
did the cities of Alia contend for the honor of giving a feite to this 
temple the year after Tiberius had fo publicly expreded his difpleafure 
at the being worlhippedr—And in his prefence ?—If they did fo—may 
*ve not fuppofe that the Senate, who feem to have claimed the ex- 
clulive privilege of deciding in fuch cafes, encouraged, if not the ap¬ 
plication, at lead:, the tedious litigation ?—And did Tiberius, for fo 
many days, fit Hill and liften to fo contemptible a litigation ?—So fays 
Tacitus, who has taken care not to let us know what he faid on that 
occafion—though he has taken care to let us know that he attended 
lb conftantly to obviate fome report, and, if we miftake not, a report 
that had gone abroad that he intended to deftroy Agrippina privately. 
What Ihould have induced Tiberius to think of going conftantly to 
the Senate, for the purpofe of obviating fuch a report, we cannot 
imagine. 

In the following year—viz—780, Tacitus fays, A. iv. 64, that the 
fenator Junius had an effigies of Tiberius in his houfe—and, that that 
effigies was fuppofed to have ftopt the rage of the fire on Mount 
Ccelius.—It alfo appears, from what Tacitus fays further in that 
chapter, that the Senate and Tiberius were, at that time, on the beft 
of terms; and, from what Paterculus fays, ii. 130, that Tiberius and 
all the other ranks of the people were on exa&ly the fame terms.— 
Is it not then rather ftrange that the fenator Junius fhould have had 
an effigies of Tiberius in his houfe, when Tiberius had, at the time, 
thrice prohibited it, and once publicly ?— And ftill, as Tacitus fays, 
continued to exprefs his contempt of it ?—-And is it not ftill ftranger 
that the Senate Ihould have decreed then that the part of the citv- 


199 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

which was then burnt ffiould be called Auguflus—and, that the 
facrednefs of the place, in which the Gods had manifefled fo much 
honor to the prince, fhould be increafed.—Did this proceed from ex¬ 
treme deference or extreme oppofition ? 

In the next year—viz—781, Tacitus, we find, fays, iv. 74, that 
the Senate were terrified with the apprehenfion of fome very great 
undeferibed internal political evil, which, he feems to infinuate, was 
worfe than the revolt of a warlike people, and which, he feems alfo to 
intimate, it was in the power of Tiberius, who was then refident at 
Capreae, and afraid to appear at Rome, to remedy, and that they 
therefore came to a refolution of trying to procure his interference by 
adulation. —What?—The Senate came to a refolution of trying to ob¬ 
tain the interference of Tiberius by adulation ! ?—Was he ever before 
known to be negligent in his duty?—And did they not know how 
offenfive adulation ever was to him ?—And what fort of adulation did 
they think would be molt acceptable to him ?—fcil—They, though 
engaged in the difeufiion of other points—Ita quanquam diverfis fuper 
rebus confulerentur—decreed effigies to him and to Sejanus* around 
the altar of Clemency and that of Amity.—-And did the Senate really 
decree effigies to him and to Sejanus, too around the altars of thofe 
deities, and perfuade themfelves that it was a fpecies of adulation 
which he was moft likely to reliffi?—Had they, as well as Tacitus, 
forgotten that he had ordered them not to decree him ftatues or 
images ?—That he aifapproved of the worffiip of himfelf but two 
years before?—Has not Tacitus before (aid that he ever exprefied his 
contempt of the worfhip of himfelf ?—•They furely mull have inten led 
to infult him. 

* Dion, 1. 58, p. 623, B., seems to say, that Sejanus was not Worshipped 
till the year 784, when the Senate discovered by the very respectful expressions 
which Tiberius Ind lately used concerning him how much he valued him. 







200 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

In the beginning of the year 785, fays Tacitus, A. vi. 3, the people 
of Rome, having lately difeovered the flagitious pra&ices of Livia, 
proceeded to vent their indignation againft her effigies and memory— 
or, perhaps he meant to fay, her effigies which were intended to per¬ 
petuate her memory.—But what Livia could he have meant?—If Livia 
the mother of Tiberius, the Senate appear to have confecrated her in 
defiance of Tiberius.—But of what'flagitious practices could fhe have 
been guilty?—And as to Livia the daughter-in-law of Tiberius, does 
not Dion inform us, 1 . 58, p. 628, D., that Tiberius put her to death, 
in the year 784, foe being concerned in the murder of her hufband ? 
How then can any one fuppofe that he would have permitted effigies 
to be be fet up in remembrance of her. 

The laft evidence which we ffiall adduce from this author is from 
A. vi. 47, where he relates the {lory of Albucilla, a woman infamous 
for her manifold amours—multorum amoribus famofa—having been, 
in the laft half of the laft year of Tiberius, accufed of impiety, and 
feemingly before the Senate—defertur impietatis—not to any God or 
Goddefs—but of impiety to the prince—impietatis in principem.— 
A woman, infamous for her manifold amours, accufed of impiety ?— 
Moft ridiculous!—And of impiety to that vicious old goat Tiberius ? 
And before the Roman Senate too ?—Moft contemptible!—And would 
the confcript fathers attend to fuch a charge ?—And, after the empe¬ 
ror had publicly protefted againft the praaice of paying divine honors 
to himfelf, or, to any other perfon ?—Why was Hie not accufed be¬ 
fore any particular magiftrate?—This it feems fhe was not, but before 
the Senate.—But in what did her impiety confift ?—In doing, or, not 
doing—in believing, or, not believing ?—Who were her accufers, if 
more than one ?—What penalty could the Senate inffia on her, in 
oppontion to the will of the prince, againft whom alone the impiety is 
laid to have been committed?—And laftly—had fhe any accomplice? 



201 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

Her accufer, Tacitus fcems to fay, was her own hufband—cui 
matrimonium cum Satrio Secundo conjurationis (obferve, and not im- 
/uetatis) indice.—Albucilla then was married, and, feemingly, to a 
fenator, for, if not, why fhould her hufband have thought of accufing 
her in the Senate ?—S. Secundus then muff be fuppofed to have been 
a worfhipper of the prince—that is, of Tiberius, though he had, as 
Tacitus himfelf fays, vi. 38, been, but a little more than a year before, 
reprefented by Trio, as an old dotard; and, as Suetonius fays, iii. 45, 
been ridiculed, on the flage, as an old goat. And fo mufl the Senate 
too, though he had, as Tacitus fays, v. 2, been derided, in their pre¬ 
fence, by one of the confuls, to the great diverfion of the higher orders; 
and, as Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 633, A., been expofed by Lucius Sejanus, 
the prsetor, on the 4th of the kal. of May, next after the death of his 
kinfman, who, in the Floralia, employed, in the day time, none but 
bald men; and, in the night, ordered all the link boys, of whom 
there were 5,000, that attended the theatre, to be fhaved. 


But did the impiety of Albucilla end in any confpiracy againfl 
Tiberius ?—So, it fcems by the expreffion which Tacitus has ufed, we 
are left to imagine.—If it did, fhe mull; have had accomplices. Who 
then were her accomplices ?—Tacitus, in this chapter, mentions three 
—viz—Cn. Domitius, V. Marfus, and L. Arruntius: thofe, fubjoins 
Tacitus, were men of the greateft rank—that is, patricians.—Thofe 
he mentions as having been connected with her, though not as accom¬ 
plices with her in impiety to the prince, but only as confpirators and 
adulterers—conne&abantur ut confcii et adulteri ejus. But of thofe 
it feems, Tiberius himfelf had no fufpicion—nullaeque in eos impera- 
toris litterae fufpieionem dabant.—Indeed Tacitus feems to intimate 


IT 





202 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

that Tiberius, their deified prince, was then infirm , and, it may have 
been, even ignorant of the offence of thofe noblemen if not of that 
of Albucilla—invalido ac fortafle ignaro. 

But could it have been poffible that the Roman Senate, or any 
officer belonging to that body, could have thought fucli an offence 
cognizable in a woman infamous for her manifold amours, efpecially 
after the emperor had publicly exprefled his difpleafure at the practice, 
and had continued fo to do in private, and had even ordered that no 
human being fhould be worfhipped. Had they not before permitted 
one of their own body to deride him in their pYefence?—And had not 
fome of them fignified their approbation of it afterwards by treafuring 
up his farcafms in their memories?—And who, if Tiberius was igno- 
ifant of the matter, was the prefident of the committee appointed by 
them to take cognizance of the imputed offence?—fcil—Macro, the 
preefeft of the city—Scd teflium interrogation!, tormentis fervorum 
Macronem prcefedifle, commentarii ad fenatum miffi ferebant.~ 
What ?—Was Macro, who was the commander of the life guards, 
appointed by the Senate prefident of the committee who tried Albu- 
cilla for impiety towards his fovereign?—And did he, in order to 
prove her guilty of the offence, torture her fervants?—Does not Taci¬ 
tus fay, in the next fentence, that Macro was a known adverfary to 
one of her accomplices—viz—Arruntius?—And does he not alfo feem 
to fay that mofl of the things (for it feems there were many) laid to 
his charge were without foundation?—And even forged by Macro? 
Fi&aque ob inimicitias Macronis notas in Arruntium? 

But if Satrius Secundus was the informer, mufl there not have been 
fomething like a confpiracy between him ahd Macro, againfl Arrun¬ 
tius, if not againfl the whole party ?—And a confpiracy too about we 
know not what .'-—And why were the flaves to be tormented on this 


203 




/ 

The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

occafion ?—Whofe {laves were they, if not thofe of S. Secundus?— 
And if they were his, what neceflity was there to torment them for 
evidence againft his own wife ?—But what fcntence was pronounced 
on Albucilla and her three impious accomplices or adulterers ?—Of 
the fentence of Albucilla he fays nothing- -at leaf!, in this chapter : 
and of the fentences of her paramours he alfo makes no mention. 
He only teems to intimate that their lives were in imminent danger— 
and, that Arruntius, fearing what might enfue, put an end to himfelf 
—Igitur Domitius defenlionem meditans, Marfus tanquam inediam 
detlinavitfet, produxere vitam.—Arruntius was perfuaded by his friends 
to procaflinate, but refufcd to live any longer—and why ?—Was he 
afraid of an ignominious punifhment ?—This does not feem to have 
been the caufe of his deadly refolution. What then was the caufe of 
it?—foil—it was then pretty well underftood that Caius, who had 
received the worft education—peffimis innutritum*—would foon fuc- 
ceed Tiberiusf—and, that Macro, who was worfe than Scjanus, would 
then have more power. And could this confederation have arifen in 
the mind of one accufed of having committed adultery with an impious 
common woman?—And, efpecially, if he had been then likely to 
fuffer for his having denied the divinity of Tiberius?—Befides—was 

t 

it true that he had received fo bad an education?—Or, was it then 
known, that he was to fucceed Tiberius ?—What fays Suetonius and 

* Suetonius says, iv. 10, that Cains lived with Livia till she died, and then 
with Antonia till he was ‘20 years old. 

/ 

•f Tacitus says, vi. 40, that Tiberius had not, a little before his death, fixed 
on his successor.—Suelonius says, iv. 19—Sed avum nieum narrantem puer 
audiebam, causam operis ab interioribus aulicis proditam, quod Thrasyllus 
Mathematicus, anxio de successore Tiberio, et in verum nepotem proniori, 
afTirmasset—Non magis Caiura imperaturum, quam per Bajanum sinum equis 
discursurum. 


LI 2 





204 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

i 

jofephus on the former point?—And what fays Suetonius and Tacitus 
bimfelf on the latter?—Suetonius fays, iv. 10, that Caius ever re¬ 
mained with his mother till her banifhment, then with Livia till her 
death, and then, with his grand-mother Antonia, till he was 20 years 
of age, when he was fent for to Caprea?, and foon after—viz—in the 
2 ift of his age, (19th of Tiberius) was married to Junia Claudilla, 
the daughter of M. Silanus, one, as Suetonius, iv. 12, and Dion, 1 . 59, 
p. 646, A., fay, of the moft noble men at Rome.—Jofephus fays, 
A. xix. 2, t. y that he received the beft education, under Tiberius, and 
afterwards made a bad ufe of it .—xStXtpn yxp 1rxtios fnT ytyovon TiZtpm, « 

x.xi ^ixSoyps yivtrxt yayx avxyyxx[KX ttxi^eixs xvrtyto-Qxiy $jx to xxt xvtos us 
tx vrpZrx tv xvTri xxropQu/v ^ixirptittiv, xxi (tvve^)iXokxXei Txios, avyftvtis re xv^pos , 
Y-xi vjyf/xovor tixuv tnnroXxir, urpuiTtvat rt tojv xar’ xvtov ttoXituv, a iv xvTiTy^iv 
c7x T£ eymro xvrco rx tx. rr,s %xi$eixs avXXeytvTx xyx9x irpos tov ettsXQovtx oXs9pov 
xvrco V7ro Tr,s t^avizs .— And as to the other point — Tacitus himfelf has, 
only the chapter immediately before that in which he begins to relate 
this ftory of Albucilla, (46) faid that Tiberius, after a long while 
deliberating about a fucceflor, finding himfelf unable to determine, 
left it to fate. And Jofephus, we know, fays, A. xviii. 7, 0., that he, 
juft before his death, ordered Euodius to bring his grandfons to him 
in the morning, with a refolution to appoint him who fhould be 
brought firft. 

But what fentence was palled on Albucilla for her impiety to her 
prince, and for her numerous adulteries ?—viz—(lie was, by the Senate , 
ordered to prifon, after having attempted to kill lierfelf.—Albucilla 
irrito i£tu femet vulnerata, juftu fenatus in carcerem fertur. And was 
this the whole of her punifhment?—If it was, fhe feems to have fuf- 
fered a lefs fevere punifhment for her impiety to her prince, and her 
infidelity to her hufband, than her paramours expefled to receive for 
having beerL-too familiar with her. 


205 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

But were the three before-mentioned the only partakers of her im¬ 
piety, or, rather iniquity?—In the next chapter—viz—the 48, he 
enumerates two or three others—viz—Grafidius Sacerdos, and Pontius 
Fregcllanus, and thofe two, he fays, were men of the greateft rank; 
for Grafidius Sacerdos, he fays, was a pr^tor, and Pontius Frcgellanus, 
a man of fenatorial rank.—But neither of thefe, it feems, by what 
Tacitus fays, was an accomplice in any other fort of impiety than in 
fornication—Stuprorum ejus miniftri. Confequenlly, this Albucilla, 
who was accufed of impiety againfl the old goat Tiberius, muff, as 
Tacitus has, in the beginning, intimated, have been, what we call, a 
common {trumpet. 

And what punifhment, docs he fay, was indicted on thefe minifters 
of her lewdnefs?—fcil—Grafidius Sacerdos, was, by the Senate , banifhed 
to an ifland—and Pontius Fregellanus was expelled from their aflembly. 

Such is the unintelligible and ridiculous account which Tacitus, 
the prince of hiftorians, (as he has been, by our illiterate Literati, 
ufually called,) has given of this affair.—An account which, at 
leaft, implies that certain perfons, if not molt of the Senate, {till wor¬ 
shipped Tiberius—and, in defiance too of his edi£t to the contrary— 
and of the contempt which he always ufed to exprefs of thofe that 
worfhipped him; and which alfo implies that they did not confider 
him fuch a monlter of luft, and cruelty, and irreligion as Suetonius 
reprefents him to have been. All this, this account pretty clearly 
implies, if not, that the offence of Albucilla was of a very differ¬ 
ent nature from that commonly meant by adultery or impiety to 
Tiberius. 

We find then that thofe three hiftorians—viz—Tacitus, Suetonius, 
and Dion agree in acknowledging that Tiberius did, in fome part of 
his reign, prohibit the worfhip of himfelf, but in what year he did it, 



20(5 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

no two of them are agreed. We alfo find that Tacitus and Dion fay 
that the people continued to worfhip him notwithftanding his prohibi¬ 
tion, and notwithftanding he, ever after, expreffed fuch contempt of 
the worshippers of man; and, that the Senate appear to have profe- 
cuted many, even when he was afraid to truft himfelf among them, 
for not worshipping him—and, among them, a notorious adulterefs 
of rank and her fenatorial paramours, who were confpirators with her 
not againft his earthly throne but againft his heavenly. 

Having now eftablifhed thofe three important fa£ls—viz—that 
Tiberius was, in his life time, worlhipped by mofl of his fubje£ts-~ 
that he, both publicly and privately, condemned the practice as being 
moft abfurd and impious—and that the Senate, after all, perfifted in 
making the people worfhip him. Let us now proceed to enquire what 
one or two other writers fay of their continuing to worfhip him. And 
firfl let us hear what Seneca fays of the pra&ice of profecuting folks 
for not worshipping him. 

v i i 

Seneca, de Ben. 1 . iii, c. 26, fays, that as a man of praetorian rank, 
named Paullus, vras once partaking of a certain fupper—caenabat in 
convivio quodam—he had a ring on his finger with an image of Tibe¬ 
rius on it in relief. With this ring on his finger he was, by a well- 
known informer, obferved to take an urinal in his hand, in a Slate, as 
appears by the fequel, of intoxication. Of this Maro, a notorious 
informer, who happened to be of the party,* took notice, and imme¬ 
diately went and informed againfl him as having been guilty of im¬ 
piety towards Caefar, and cited the reft of the company in fuppert of 
his charge. This mofl ridiculous ftory, Seneca relates as an inftance 
of the inconceivable mifehief which informers did under Tiberius. 

v How Maro, a notorious informer, happened to be of one of this prajto- 
rian party, Seneca has forgot to tell us. 


207 


» 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

A flory which appears to be rendered not a little queflionable by what 
Tacitus fays, iii. 70, of the conduit of Tiberius when L. Ennius, a 
Roman knight, was, in the year, 775, profecuted, in the Senate, for 
a limilar offence. Tiberius, fays he, objected to his being profecuted 
on luch a charge—but Atejus Capito, zealous for the divinity of his 
fovereign, contended that the Senate had a right to proceed—that 
Tiberius did wrong by endeavouring to flop the profecution—that fo 
great an inftance of maleficence ought not to be permitted to pafs un- 
punifhed—that Caefar might do as he pleafed in cafes which con¬ 
cerned himfelf only, but that this was one which concerned the 
Roman people. All this, fays Tacitus, Tiberius heard, but {fill would 
not give up the point. 

We have now examined what Dion and the Roman writers have 
laid of the worfhip of Tiberius, and we feem to have dilcovered that 
they have given an unfatisfa&ory, if not a contradi£fory, account of 
it, but an account which tends to make us apprehenfive that the 
Romans muff have held him in the greateff veneration, and that he 
had too much good fenfe to be pleafed with it, if not an account to 
induce us to think that feme mofl extraordinary change of a religious 
nature muff have taken place in him. Let us now hear what Philo 
fays of his worfhip. 

Philo, in his leg. 769, B., fpeaks of the very unufual happinefs 
which overfpread the whole world at the death of Tiberius—this 
happinefs, he fays, 769, G., continued during the firft 7 months of 
Caius—in the 8th month, fays he, Cams was taken dangeroufly 
ill: on his recovery, fays he, 770, E., there was an univerfal re¬ 
joicing—but, fays he, F., this did not continue long, for, fays he, 
776, D., he, foon after, murdered the young Tiberius, Silanus, and 
Macro—and the two laff for giving him wholefome advice. After he 


208 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

had murdered thofe three he afpired to be a God ——UK tn r}%lX {JLBVSIV 

tv to is tti s otvGpcuTrtvvjs- (pvtjzxs opois, aAX’ vTTBpty.vrTre Geos vopu^zarQou.-— 

Having taken this conceit into his head lie, E., inftantly got the 
people to acquiefce in the fuppofition that he was a God—firft of an 
inferior order, and then of the firft order. Philo then proceeds to 
fhew that his a&ions were neither like thofe of a Demi-God, nor, 
like thofe of a God, becanfc the actions of all Gods were fuppofed to 
have benefited mankind , p. 777, D ; whereas Caius, he aflerts, had 
done nothing but to make them tniferable, F.; thereby confefiing 
that the very unufual peace which overfpread the world at his accef- 
fion, did not originate with him, but with Tiberius. But what ?-— 
Was Caius not the foie caufe of the moft profound and univerfal 
peace which pervaded all mankind at his acceflion, and was he the 
foie caufe of this moft affli&ing reverfe in the happinefs of the whole 
world?—And by afpiring to be a God?—If he was, for this foie reafon, 
the caufe of their mifery—may we not conclude that it is very likely, 
that Tiberius w r as, for the oppolite reafon, the caufe of their exceffive 
happinefs?—Philo, having premifed all this, proceeds, at 780, D., to 
fubjoin that the Jews were the principal fufferers, for fays he, p. 780, 
E., all the reft of the world had, though very relu&antly, fubmitted 
to adore. The conlequence of this infubmiffion of the Jews to his 
- Godftiip, fays he, p. 781, A., was that a moft deftru£tive and an un¬ 
declared war was earned on againft our nation— [/.tyt^os uv xxi xxripvxTos 
iroXt^os evrt ru £ 0 m avnxporuTo —which, fays he, B., as foon as the Alexan¬ 
drians (who, fubjoins he, had long wifhed for the opportunity) per¬ 
ceived, they, as if afting by the authority of the emperor ,' proceeded 
to perfecute the Jews in the moft cruel manner. And, as he fays, 
p. 782, E., by the connivance of the governor, who could alone have 
put a flop to it in an hour —wpx (J.IX. 


209 


The 'worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

\ 

Now when does Philo appear to fay this perfecution of the Jews of 
Alexandria happened, if not, as we have already feen, he himfelf pretty 
clearly feems to fay, foon after the murder of Silanus and Macro ?— 
That is—in the year 792, or, before the 2d year of Caius was ended. 
Early in that year, fays Dion, 1 . 59, p. 652, C., he revived pro- 
feCUtionS for impiety— Yxios y.tv, rxvrx tiirus, xxi ms xaz^tixs tyxX-nyLxrx 
tTtxvxyxyuv —which, he had, asDionalfo fays, p. 642, D., before pro¬ 
hibited. And who was then the governor of Egypt, but, as Philo fays, 
Flaccus?—Let us attend to what he fays of the perfecution of the 
Jews of Alexandria under Flaccus. 

Philo fays, p. 761, D., of Flaccus, that he was fix years the praTeft 
of Egypt—viz—from 785, when Severus was removed, till 791; and 
of thofe fix years, he fays, p. 748, D., that he was nearly five under 
Tiberius; and, that he was, during the life of Tiberius, not only by 
far better than any of his predeceflors, but really very excellent.— 
Philo alfo fays, that Flaccus permitted a perfon, named Lampoon, 
who, he feems to fay, p. 749, F., was the head of one of the feveral 
parties that perfecuted the Jews of Alexandria, to be profccutcd for 
irreverence to his patron and friend Tiberius—and, that he not only did 
fo, but that he permitted the perfecution to be continued two years* 

—A xfjLTtuv yuv x7t*tixs tis T tGtpiov VLxiaxpx $ixviv ayuv, x.xi vki Sisnxv rp&oyLtvtf 

m TTpxyyLxros xmiprixus .—And did Flaccus, who was fo incomparable a 
governor, who, as Philo fays, p. 761, A., 764, D., was one of the 
chief friends of Tiberius, and who therefore muft be fuppofed to have 
heard him often exprefs his contempt of fucli worfhip, and alfo to 
have heard, before he went to Egypt, that he had commanded that 
no man fhould be worfhipped; (for, according to Dion, Tiberius for- 

♦ If Tiberius be thought to have countenanced this proceeding how is it 
that he left the world iq so profound a peace.’ 


M m 











210 

The 'worship of Tiberius enforced against his will. 

bad the worfhip of any mail u. c. 785.) did Flaccus, indeed, after all 
this, permit fuch a perfecution, and in Egypt above all places?— 
And before the death of r J'iberius ?—And did he alfo permit it to be 
continued two years?—Did he not know, as well as Philo,* that 
Tiberius had punifhed feveral of his prsefe&s for their mifeondudt 
in their refpe&ive provinces ?—And that all the reft had taken warn- 
-ing by it?—Why then did not Flaccus?—Philo alfo fays, p. 749, D., 
that Flaccus was, after the death of his beft friend Macro, and in the 
courfe of the year 791, the fecond of Caius, quite broken-hearted 
and unfit for bufinefs, and that the enemies of the Jews, who, he 
fays, were clafted under feveral heads, (among whom he, it fhould 
be obferved, fays, were the followers of Lampoon and Taraxipolis,) 
taking advantage of this paralyfis of Flaccus, prevailed on him to 
permit them to perfecute the Jews, p. 750, A. Soon after, fays Philo, 
p. 750, B., Agrippa palled through Alexandria in his way from Rome 
to Paleftine to take poftedion of his uncle Philip’s tetrarchy, where 
he was groflly infulted by the populace, and, without the leaft inter* 
ruption from Flaccus.. Encouraged by the paftivenefs of their governor, 
fays Philo, p. 752, the enraged populace rufhed early in the morning 
into the theatre, and there tumultuoufly agreed to ere<ft ftatues in the 
oratories of the Jews. And what, as the Jews were protected by the 
laws, could have difpofed them to think of committing this outrage ? 
Efpecially as Agrippa, the favorite of Caius, was then prefent, and, as 
Philo fays, p. 758, E., undertook that Caius fhould be brought ac¬ 
quainted with the whole proceeding?—fcil—they pretended to do it 

* iviot 7 xp xxi tiu T iGzpiu xxi siu r« nxrpos xvra Kxiaxpos rw ^isttovtuv rxs 

sisixpxrsixs , rr,v nu^O.uxv xxi rtpo^xcrtx'j sis cwxrsixv xxi rvpxvvt^x (xsQxppxotrxixsvoi, 

~ > * ' ' - 

rxs yxpxs rjsTr/rirxv xx'/.u/v x-,v,y.*^ujv , oupooaxixis t xpirxyxiSy xxrxoixxts tuv fxtv 
y){xxprr,Korw» t/.acrcnv xxi (f-vystis, ruv Syj ixtuv xxpnois xvxipsrtv, as fxsrx rov 
vpicmvTx yjovov rvs stpyris, s ( rrxvs\9ovrxs sis Pxyvv, xvroxpxropss A oyov xxi 
tvQvvxs rxy 'irtTrpxyiAsvxv ^ruv, x.xt pxx’Kn^ ottjtxv rroso’^vaxitro a/ x$ixy9sicrxt 
'is'j/.tts. —Philo, ill FI. 578, F. 9. A. 


1 


/ 


211 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

out of refpeft to Caefar, bccaufe he could not be profecuted.— 

TUT E/SoTE^, 0%'JTXTOl */xp TriV ^O^OvipIXV SI<TtV X.XTX'TOtyl^OVTXl TO YLxt<TXfOS OVO(XX 

’rrpo)tct.\v[A[A<x. TToiriaxutvoi, u> Trpoa-xTTTeiv n tojv tirctniu* a 9t(Atrov. B—Blit would 
they have prefumed to commit fo flagrant an outrage in the name of 
Caefar, if they had not, by fome means, been informed that it would 
be agreeable to Caefar?—-What fays he in his Leg. on this point?— 
He there fays, p. 783, F., that the Alexandrians were the mod inve¬ 
terate enemies of the Jews, and, that when they heard that Caius had 
commanded people to worfhip him they were emboldened to profane 
the fynagogues of the Jews—that they erefled in them ftatues to 
Caius, and in one of them a ftatue let in a chariot, to which were 
joined four horfes of brafs, which had formerly been dedicated to the 
great-grandmother of the lad Cleopatra. A practice, continues he, to 
which they were, above all people, always addi£ted. It was therefore 
out of zeal for the worfhip of Caius that the Alexandrians proceeded 
to profane the oratories of the Jews. And confequently Caius mud 
have ordered himfelf to be worlhipped in the fecond year of his reign, 
and before Agrippa went to his kingdom, as Jofephus alfo atteds, 
A. xviii. 7, icc. 

The worfhip of Caius then was, by the account of Philo, inflantly 
attended with the mod grievous perfection of the Jews, and profana¬ 
tion of their oratories at Alexandria; why then, if Tiberius had en¬ 
joined the worfhip of himfelf, was not that alfo attended with the 
profanation of their places of worfhip at Alexandria alfo ?—That 
Tiberius was not worfhipped by the Alexandrians, notwithflanding 
what Philo fays of the profecution of Lampoon, is plain both from 
what he himfelf fays immediately after, in the fame work, and from 
what he, in the feqnel, reprefents Agrippa as having faid to Cains. 


M m 2 






212 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

« 

He fays, immediately after—perhaps they, that is, the Egyptians, 
will fay, that as the Caefars are greater than the Ptolemies, fo tis but 
fair that the former fhould be honored more than the latter. A moft 
ridiculous reafon I For why then had not Tiberius,* to whom Caius 
was indebted for every thing, the fame honors paid to him ?—A prince, 
who, after a reign of 23 years, did not leave any thing like the ap¬ 
pearance of war, either in Greece or Barbary, but lived in the con- 
flant enjoyment of the bleffings of peace till he died. And yet Tibe¬ 
rius, after all this, was not fo honored. 

In the fequel, Philo reprefents Agrippa, p. 799, F., as obferving in 
a deprecatory epiftle to Caius, when he was afraid to appear in the 
prefence of his offended Godfhip, that Tiberius had, through the whole 
courfe of his reign, maintained the temple fervice—and, that he had, 
in particular, continued the oblation of a bull and two lambs. But of 
Caius having obferved in reply how many he had profecuted for not 
worfhipping him, he fays not a word. 

Laftly—Jofephus fays of this fame Agrippa, A. xix. 7, y„ that he 
was a remarkably zealous obferver of the law. And Philo, in his Leg. 
lays, that he was overcome with horror when he heard from Caius, 
his pupil in the lyflcm of tyranny, for whofe fake he had been im- 
prifoned, and by whom he had been liberated, that he had given 
orders for his flatue to be fet up in the temple. But if his religious 
notions would not permit him to appear in the prefence of fo impious 
a character, would not the fame principles have kept him from begging 
to be permitted to vifit Tiberius, if he had claimed divine honors and 
had profecuted many for not paying them ?—Jofephus, we find, fays, 
A. xviii. 7, that he, on his return to Italy, fent to Tiberius, then 

* Does not Philo, by this, seem to deny that divine honors vrere ever paid 
to Tiberius. 


213 


The worship of Tiberius enforced against his will . 

at Caprea?, to know if he had any obje&ion to fee him—tfyat Tiberius, 
with all kindnefs, inftantiy delired him to come, and, when he arrived, 
received him with all imaginable cordiality—gave him apartments in 
the palace, and delired him to undertake the inftru&ion of his grand- 
fon. Now as Agrippa was fo fcrupulous an obferver of the law, would 
he, if Tiberius had pretended to an equality with God, have delired 
to be admitted into his prefence ?—Would he not have been deterred 
from redding in his houfe by the fear of being prelied to partake of 
things offered to idols'—If not of other things forbidden by the law ? 





214 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

WE have fecn, CHAP, vi, that Tiberius was, notwithflanding 
what Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dion fay of him, moft eminently ex¬ 
emplary, great, juft, and humane, till he went to Caprea?. And w T e 
have alfo feen, CHAP, xii, that he was, always, almoft univerfally 
worfhipped for his beneficence to mankind—and, at laft, contrary to 
his will. If then he was fo excellent a prince as to have been thought 
worthy of divine honors, and fucli honors were conftantly paid to 
him during the whole of his reign, and in the latter part of it in oppo- 
iition to an edidt which he publifhed forbiding it to be done—who 
would expe£t to hear any writers fay that he was vilifyed by any of 
his cotemporaries?—And for his cruelties and unnatural luft?—Efpe- 
cially, as not one of his cotemporary hiftorians, Roman, Jewifh, or 
Chriftian, has made the lead mention of his having been lampooned, 
or, of his having, in the leaft, deferved it. We are informed by 
Tacitus, iv. 11, that moft of the writers who lived after the days of 











21.5 


Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

Tiberius, fought for every thing fcandalous to fay of him.-—Neque 
quifquam feriptor tarn infenfus exftitit, ut Tiberio obje&aret, cum 
omnia alia conquirerent, intenderentque.—Now what thofe writers, 
whofe works are loft, may have faid of Tiberius, we know not; but 
of this we feem to be pretty fure, that neither Jofephus nor Juvenal, 
who had both very good means of being well acquainted with his 
character, have faid any thing to lead us to fuppofe that he did any 
thing reprelienfibie. Indeed if he had done any thing very reprehen- 
fible, would not Juvenal have taken care to fatyrize him for it?—Have 
we not then fome reafon to queftion this report ofTacitus ?—And the 
more fo, as, we find, he himfelf acknowledges that the government of 
Tiberius was very good till the ninth year, or, till the death of Drufus 
—and, as we have alfo feen, that he himfelf allows that Tiberius left 
Rome, according to his own predetermination, and, that he remained 
at Capreae voluntarily. 

That moft of his predeceftors then were fond of afperfing the cha¬ 
racter of Tiberius appears to be not true. But Tacitus himfelf, we 
find, and one or two others have, to our no little aftonifhment, aflerted 
that he was commonly lampooned; and, to our inconceivably greater 
aftonifhment, he himfelf fays, that the practice of lampooning him 
was continued during almoft the whole of his reign.—Let us attend to 
What Tacitus and each of thofe other two fay of this moft unufual 
practice—of the perfons who did it, of the time when they did it moft, 
and of the reafon or reafons why they did fo—and, for the purpofe 
of fatisfying ourfelves whether their accounts appear to agree or to 
difagree. And firft let us attend to what Tacitus fays on thofe points. 

The firft inftance which occurs in the hiftory of this writer is A. i. 72, 
in the end of which chapter he fays—Tiberius was exafperated by 
fome verfes, made by fome anonymous authors, lafhing his cruelty, his 







216 


Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

pride, and his contentions with his mother.—Hunc quoque afperavere 
carmina, incertis au&oribus vulgata, in faevitiam fuperbiamque ejus, 
et difcordem cum matre animum.—In the beginning of the chapter 
he, it fhould be obferved, had faid—that the people had often offered 
him the title of “ father of his country ”—and, that he had as often 
refufed it—and, that he ufed to fay, on fuch occafions, that all things 
in this life are uncertain, and, that the more he had, the greater was 
his danger.—Nomen Patris Patriae Tiberius a populo faepius ingeftum 
repudiavit: neque, See.: —cuntta mortalium incerta, quantoque plus 
adeptus foret, tanto fe magis in lubrico di£lans: non tamen ideo fidem 
faciebat civilis animi.—As then Tiberius was, after he became a . 
monarch, even by the evidence of Tacitus himfelf, i. 12, eminently 
exemplary in private life—and was, in the eourfe of the year follow¬ 
ing, fo frequently importuned by the people to take the title of 
“ father of his country,” and expreffed himfelf with fo much diffi¬ 
dence on thofe occalions. And as Tacitus alfo fays, i. 80, continued 
afterwards to hate vice. Why fhould we be expefted to believe that 
he was, even then, both cruel and proud?—And that, even then, 
anonymous verfifyers took the liberty of lafhing him for thofe vices ? 
Does not Tacitus himfelf fay, iv. 1, that in the beginning of the gth 
year he began either to be cruel himfelf, or to give others the power 
of being cruel?—And does he not again fay, iv. 57, that he retired to 
Capreae on purpofe to conceal his cruelty?—And, as to his pride, 
does not Tacitus himfelf fay of him, iv. 38, that he refufed the molt 
refpc£tful title that could be conferred on him—and, that he refufed 
it again and again ?—And, does he not inform us that the people were, 
every where, fond of deifying him ?—Not for his bad qualities, furely, 
but for his good.* And does he not alfo inform us, iv. 38, that he 
obje&ed to his being deified—and, that fome attributed his refufal to 

* Philo says, Legat. p. 777, D., that the beneficent only were deified. 


217 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

modejly , fome to diffidence? —If he was fo very proud, would he, as 
Dion fays, 1 . 57, have been fo very popular?—And, as he alfo fays, 
have continued fo till the death of Germanicus?—And, as he more¬ 
over fays, highly extolled— (xs'yxXus xxi Trporepov e^rxivsiAtvov. —And, had 
that been the cafe, would Suetonius have faid of him, iii. 26, that 
he, even after the death of Germanicus, lived, in all refpe&s, like a 
private citizen. Out of the very many and the very great honors 
offered to him, accepting only few and the lead:.—Verum liberatus 
metu, civilem admodum inter initia ac paullo minus quam privatum 
egit. Ex plurimis maximifque honoribus, p raster paucos et modicos 
non recepit, &c.* Nothing then can have been more untrue than 
that Tiberius w r as fo foon both cruel and proud—and, as to his dis¬ 
agreements with his mother have we not already, CHAP, viii, had 
Sufficient proof that there is not the lead foundation for the charge ? 
—But, befides thofe Several indances of mifreprefentation already 
noticed, there remains dill one, if not two others—viz—his prefu¬ 
med irritability at feeing the contents of thofe libellous publications, 
grounded on the prefumed fa£t that he did fee them. Tacitus himfelf 
fays, in Several parts of his hidory of the reign of Tiberius, that he 
was fo far from being moved at thofe anonymous publications, that 
he not only took no notice of them but even defpifed them ;f and 
that this appears to be true, why may we not conclude from this un¬ 
deniable fa£t that no writer has told us that he endeavoured, by the 
means of accufers, to difeover the authors. And as to the prefump- 

* That Tiberius continued of the same disposition to the end of his days, 
who can doubt, that knows what Suetonius says, 29, of his affability—40, of 
his accessibility—and, 76, of his choice of witnesses to his will. 

t See note, at p. 84. 


Nn 







218 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

lion of his having condefcended to read them, by whom were they, 
as bookfeHers were not then in falhion, conveyed to him ?—As then 
every one of the particulars contained in this infamous report appears, 
by the evidence of all preceding writers, and even of Tacitus himfelf, 
to be untrue; what reafon have we to believe either Tacitus or his 
numerous learned admirers in other cafes—efpecially concerning the 
graviflijnum exitium mentioned in the very next fentence, as intro¬ 
duced by the art of Tiberius ?—Let us proceed to fee what Tacitus 
fays of the defamers of Tiberius in the three next books. 

He fays, ii. 50, that Apuleja Varilia was accufed of having fpoken 

i . . . . A. * k _ • v • 

difrefpe&fully of Auguftus, Tiberius, and Livia—and, that Tiberius 
would not fuffer her to be tried for what fhe was faid to have fpoken 
again!! himfelf.—In fe jafta nolle ad cognitionem vocari. 

Again—he fays, iii. 49, that Lutorius Prifcus (who, it feems by 
the account of Dion, was a fenator,) was, in the end of the year 
774, and in the former part of the 8th of Tiberius, while he was ab- 
fent from Rome, accufed, before the Senate, of having faid that he 
had written fome verfes on Drufus, while tick, for which, if that 
prince were to die, he lhould be better rewarded than he had before 
been for thofe he had written on Germanicus—and, that the Senate,* 
without the knowledge of Tiberius, attended to the charge, and con¬ 
demned him. Tiberius, on hearing of this precipitate proceeding, 
was very much difpleafed, and ordered that, for the time to come, 
no condemned perfon lhould be executed within ten days after con¬ 
demnation. 

* We meet with, in this same book, c. 57, 65, 70, three other instances of 
the zeal which the Senate manifested for the credit of Tiberius—and in the 
next c. 47, 69, two more. 



219 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

In the next year—viz—775, Tacitus does not mention anyinftance 
of a fimilar nature—but Dion, we find, has, among the events of 
that year, mentioned a moft remarkable inftance—viz—of one yElius 
Saturninus, who, from his name and from his having been tried in the 
Senate, appears to have been a perfon of great if not the greatefl rank, 
having been call headlong from the Capitol for having written fome 

<c 

fcurrilous verfes on Tiberius.—Let us then leave Tacitus, for awhile, 
and attend to what Dion fays of this .Elius Saturninus. 

Dion fays, 1 . 57, p. 618, C. u. c. 775, that Elius Saturninus was, 
after the death of Drufus, (that is, after the 9th year of Tiberius was 
pretty far advanced, for he, fays Tacitus, iv. 8, was, in that year, 
poifoned by Sejanus,) and before the commencement of the 10th year, 
accufed of having written fome, not fuch as they fhould be, verfes 

—£9 tv rtvx ax sTrirnhix —-^gainfl the emperor—that he was, in the Senate, 

\ 

tried for the offence, and found guilty—but what his fentence was he 
does npt fay—he only fays, that Tiberius himfelf, who, as Dion had 

I 

before, 1 . 57, p. 607, E., faid, never before regarded what any one 
fpoke or wrote againfl him, and efpecially againfl his divinity—who, 
as Suetonius fays, (28) ufed, even in the Senate, to deprecate the 
cognizance of fuch offences—and who, as they both fay, had felefled 
twenty privy counfellors from among the firft families at Rome— 
caufed him to be precipitated from the Capitol. 

But was it poffible that any one, knowing how fevere the Senate 
had been towards Lutorius Prifcus, and how nobly Tiberius had be* 
haved on that occafion, could, in fo fhort a time, have written againfl 
him?—Does not Tacitus fay that he was an excellent prince till the 
death of Drufus ?—And that he from that time only began to be 


N n 2 



220 


Tiberius why arid when lampooned. 

cruel?—And does he not fav, iii. 59, iv. 8, that when Tiberius, the 
year before, mentioned the infirmities of his age, and his paft fervices, 
as an excufe for not attending the Senate, they acquiefced in that ex- 
cufe?—And does he not, moreover, fay, that Drufus, who was then 
become, by age and experience, qualified to tranfaft all public bufi- 
nefs, died?—And does he not fay, iv. 15, that Tiberius, before the end 
of that fame year, fuffered two other grievous lofies—viz—that of his 
grandfon Drufus and his long tried friend Lucilius Largus?—For the 
lofs of his only fon, he, fays Jofephus, A. xviii. 7. grieved fo very 
much that he was not able, for a long time, to bear the fight of any 
of his fon’s companions. And, continues that fame writer, for that 
reafon, Agrippa, who had been one of the moft intimate of them, 
was obliged to leave Italy. If now Tiberius was fo much affe&ed at the 
lofs of his only fon, may we not well fuppofe that he was not a little 
more affe&ed by the lofs of that foil’s fon, and of his long tried friend, 
in the courfe of that fame year ?—How then can it be fuppofed that 
any one could, in that fame year, have been fo unfeeling as to aggra¬ 
vate his misfortunes:—And efpecially as he does not appear to have 
given any proof of his depravity ?—Or, that he would, in that year, 
have put any one to death only for writing a few paltry verfes—and, 
efpecially one who appears to have been related to two of the moft 
noble families in Rome, if not to Sejanus ? 

However if it be true that Saturninus was, by the order of Tiberius, 
precipitated from the Capitol, for having written verfes againft him, 
may we not fuppofe that no one attempted to write verfes, or, to do 
any thing elfe to offend him after the execution of Saturninus?— 
Efpecially, as Tacitus, we find, fays, that, in the 9th year of his 
reign, he began to be either a cruel tyrant himfelf—or, to depute 
others to be his vicegerents in tyranny—fievire ipfe, aut frevientibus 


221 


Tiberius why and when, lampooned . 

vires pnebere ?—And yet Dion, we find, not only fays that fuch was 
the fate of Saturninus for having written verfes againfi him, he alfo 
fubjoins—“ I could enumerate many more who were put to death for the 
fame offence.”’ —rioAAa ^’av xxi xXKx roiUTOTfo'nx ypa^ttv typist, it qrxvrx 
eiri^toif, tuto re nv tv xi^xXxlu etpv)a 9 ci) f on avyvot $ix rx rotxvrx im avrts 

xi tuXovto —leaving us to think that thofe many were executed after the 
horrid affair of Saturninus, and before the commencement of the ioth 
year of his reign. Dion fubjoins that Tiberius profecuted many, not 
only, for what they wrote, but, for what they faid, and even, for what 
they thought. And from this very circumftance fome, fays he, fuf- 
pe&ed that he (and not thofe fatyrical fcriblers) was befide himfelfi 
— x$ a ($v xxi t%£frjxtvxt nvts xvrov ruv typtvuv vnoxrvjaxv .— But notwith- 
ftanding fome, from this circumftance only, thought that it was fo, 
others, fays Dion, obferving moil other tilings that he did, thought 
that he was not fo, for, fays he, he, who after the death of German!- 
cus did fcarce any thing well, now again did almoft every thing well 
—tx yxp xWx xxi <7 txvv 7 7xvtx ()£ovtu;s o of which general re£litude 
of conduft he immediately fubjoins two moil remarkable infiances. 

But, could a prince, who did almoft every other thing well, have 
been capable of putting many, for fuch trifling offences, to death ?— 
And, were many others indeed fo infatuated that they would not take 
warning by the fate of Saturninus?—But continued ftill to write againfi 
their often acknowledged common father? —Who but madmen would 
have thought of writing againfi the father of their country, when he 
did almoft all things well ?—And efpecially after he put only one to 
death for it ?—-Now if it be true that, not only Saturninus, but many 
others were put to death for writing, fpeaking, and thinking reproach¬ 
fully of Tiberius, may we not expe£t to find that Tacitus has men¬ 
tioned a few of thofe executions, and efpecially that of Saturninus? 








222 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

Let us now then proceed in our fearch of what Tacitus fays of this 
matter in the remaining part of the reign of Tiberius. 

Tacitus does not relate this fhocking ftory of the execution of Satur- 
ninus for writing a few fcurrilous verfes on Tiberius, which Dion, we 
have feen, fays, happened in the year 775, neither does he fay that 
any one was profecuted for writing againft him in that or the follow¬ 
ing year; but in the year 777, he fays, iv. 31, that C. Cominius, a 
knight, made fome verfes on Tiberius, and that Tiberius, at the re- 
queft of his brother, who was a fenator, forgave him. But what?—- 
Did this knight, only two years after ^Tlius Saturninus had, for writing 
againft Tiberius, been thrown from the Capitol, prefume to write 
againft him?—And was he, after all, forgiven by Tiberius ?—And at 
the requeft of his brother, who was a fenator?—Had not iTlius Satur¬ 
ninus any friend who could intercede for him—fcil—Saturninus who, 
as Jofephus fays, A. xviii. 4, £., was the friend of Tiberius, and pro¬ 
cured the expulfion of the Jews—or, ^Tlius Sejanus ? 

Again—he fays, iv. 34, that Cremutius Cordus was, in the year 
778, accufed of having faid, in his annals, that C. Caftius was the laft 
of Romans—and, that he made an animated defence, and, then went 
and (to our no little aftonifhment) ftarved himfelf. 

By the three preceding inftances quoted from the third and fourth 
books of the annals of Tacitus, it appears that Tiberius was not at all 
fond of punching his flanderers — and, efpecially with death.—What 
then had Cremutius Cordus to fear from Tiberius?—Seneca indeed, 
Confol ad Marc., acquits Tiberius of having any thing to do with this 
affair, and lays all the blame on Sejanus.—So far, indeed, is he from 
faying that Tiberius was the caufe of the death of her father, that he 
propofes to her, when almoft inconfolable for the lofs of her fon, the 




223 


Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

example of Tiberius when he had loft his only fon. Now would he 
have recommended the example of Tiberius to her if he had been the 
caufe of the death of her father ?—Befides—he fays, that Marcia was 
moil intimately acquainted with Livia, and Livia, we know, Tacitus 
fays, A. v. 3, was the only [lerfuge in fuch cafes. 

f 

Again—Tacitus fays, iv. 42, that Votienus Montanus was, u. c. 
778, accufed of having fpoken contumelioufly of Caftar—that Tiberius 
was prefent, and heard all that was faid of him in private—that he 
was much agitated, and could fcarce be reftrained from immediately 
entering into a defence of his conduft—(which furely implies that he 
was ftill concerned for his character, and therefore that he had not 
begun then to defpife virtue,) and, Iaftly, that Votienus was found 
guilty of high-treafon—but, that he was punilhed with death, Tacitus 
does not fay. 

In the two following years Tacitus does not mention any inftance 
of this kind, but, in the year 781, he relates that incredible ftory of 
Sabinus who, Pliny, viii. 40, feems to fay, was executed, not for 
fpeaking againft Tiberius, but, for afting againft him, and, with Nero, 
who, even Tacitus admits, iv. 67, was, but in the end of the year 
before, in the cuftody of a guard, and, was advifed either to efcape 
to Germany and to place himfelf at the head of the army in that 
country, or, to take refuge at the ftatue of Auguftus in the forum— 
and who, as Paterculus fays, ii. 130, had in the courfe of the two 
years preceding the 16th, been the caufe of inexpreffible uneafinefs to 
Tiberius. The words of Pliny, in the place above referred to are 
thefe—Sed fuper omnia, in noftro awo a<ftis populi romani teftatum, 
Appio Junio, et P. Silio Cofs. cum animadverteretur ex caufta Nero- 
nis Germanici filii in Titium Sabinum, et fervitia ejus. 







224 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

\ * 

Again—Tacitus intimates, v. 2, that there was fomething in the 
character of Tiberius, at the death of his mother, very ridiculous— 
and, that Fufius, one of the confuls, foon after her death, ufed to 
make it his bufinefs to expofe it publicly—and, even before the Senate 
—and, that the fathers, who, in the courfe of the two preceding years, 
had manifeded the moll abjeft fubferviency to the will of Tiberius, 
were fo far from being offended at the liberty which he took, that 
they ufed to enjoy it. But if Tiberius continued till that time to be 
a mod excellent prince, (as we have feen CHAP. vi. he did) and, but 
a year or two before, had, by his folicited and unfolicited beneficence 
and affability endeared himfelf to all ranks of people, what writer 
would have thought of mentioning his Angularities at this jun&ure 
efpecially ?—And as having been expofed by any one at any time— 
and efpecially by one of his mod trudy fervants, and before his chief 
council?—What can we think of a conful who took this liberty of 
amufing himfelf with expofing publicly the defeats of his fovereign, 
efpecially of one fo good and fo venerable ?—And at a time too when 
he had jud lod his fuperannuated mother ?—Or, what can we think 
of the chief council of any realm who could fit and with pleafure 
liden to the farcafms of any of their own body when levelled either 
at the perfon or private qualities of their fovereign ?—Efpecially of a 
fovereign fo fituated as Tiberius then was ?—Or, rather, what can we 
think of an hidorian who would endeavour to make us believe that 
the chief council of any realm, who had, during 14 years, been all 
fubmiflion to their fovereign—who had, but two years before, defer¬ 
red the hearing of a matter of importance till his return—who had 
afterwards rendered him their thanks, in the mod flattering manner, 
for his exceflive beneficence—who, but the year before, manifeded 
their fubferviency to him, by putting the only furviving adherent of 










225 


Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

the family of Germanicus, in the moft unjuftifiable manner, to death — 
and who had, but a few months before, taken the moft extraordinary 
trouble of going, in a body, a journey of two or three days in length, 
in order to get a fight of him, if not to proftrate themfelves before 
him, would have fuffered him to be fo expofed in their prefence ?—*. 
And yet our enigmatift, we find, not only fays that this ufed to be the 
cafe, but that Junius Rufticus too, a creature of Tiberius, took, at 
the fame time, the liberty not only of advifing the Senate not to at¬ 
tend to the complaint of their aged fovereign, concerning the conduct 
of Agrippina and Nero, (though every body, he admits, knew that he 
confidered them as his mortal enemies,) but alfo of fpeaking of his 
patron with extreme difrefpedt. Tacitus alfo adds that even confulars 
took, at the fame time, pretty nearly the fame liberty with Sejanus. 
And all this, Tacitus alfo adds, and to our no little furprife, Fufius, 
Rufticus, and thofe confulars did at the very time when the govern¬ 
ment of Tiberius, by the inftrumentality of Sejanus, became, as he 
fays—prrerupta et urgens. 

Again—Tacitus fays, vi. 29, that Maeiercus Scaurus, who was of 
the /Emilian family, and therefore a man of the firft rank, and an 
orator, but, of a bad character—vita probrofus—was, in the year 787, 
again—rurfum—charged, and, feemingly by Macro, who purfued, as 
he fays, the fame arts as Sejanus, but more privately, of having, re- 
gardlefs of the fate of Saturninus, written a tragedy, in which he had 
afperfed the chara&er of Tiberius. To this, he fubjoins, that he was 
alfo charged by Servilius and Cornelius, profefted accufers, of having 
been guilty o {adultery with Livia , who, if not married to Sejanus, muft 

r 

hav% been a widow nine years before file died, and eleven years before 






/ 

226 

Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

the accufation ofScaurus—and, of having attended the facred rites of 
Magi. For which of thofe offences he was tried, Tacitus does not 
fay—he only fays, that he anticipated his condemnation—damna- 
tionem anteit—that is we fuppofe, killed himfeif. 

Let us now then again leave Tacitus, for a while, and attend to 
what Dion fays of this Scaurus. 

Dion, who alfo records this matter among the tranfa&ions of the 
fame year, fays, I. 58, p. 636, D. E., that the prienomen of this 
Scaurus was not Mamercus but Marcus ^Emilius, and, that the tra¬ 
gedy, which he wrote, was like one of Euripides, called Atreus—and 
that the part of it which gave offence was an exhortation to the 
people to bear with the inconfideratenefs, or, unadvifednefs of their 
prince— -iya t»jv r» jcparSvros- x£u?uctv <p*py .— Now if this tragedy, com- 
pofed by Scaurus, contained no other refle£lion on the conduct of 
Tiberius than this, how can that prince be fuppofed to have been fo 
much offended at it, as to have caufed him to deflroy himfeif?—And 
if a profecution had then been commenced againfl Scaurus for having 
alluded to Tiberius in any part of this tragedy, why fhould Tiberias 
be faid to have worried him to death before his trial ?—Why would 
he not permit him to live till after his trial ?—when he might have, 
precipitated him, as, this fame writer, we have found, fays, he did 
Saturninus, a few years before, for nearly the fame offence, from the 
Capitol?—Dion, however, affures us that Tiberius did behave fo 
offenfively to him, as foon as he had heard of the comparifon between 
himfeif and Atreus— />ia( 3 wv «v rS to 0 TiGeptos, e<£>’ exvtm tote to evtos Etpya-Bai 
ATptvs $tot Tt)v pua.i<poyixv t7vx< 'npocmoiyTaixEyos' noil WEnruv oti, K xi tyu Tot 
Aixvtx avrov iroiyau, avxyx.r>v 01 irpocrnyxyEv cevtoevtu xttoXe<tQxi.-— But Dion 

does not fay that Tiberius was induced to behave fo offenfively to 
Scaurus merely becaufe Scaurus had covertly advifed folks to bear 


227 


Tiberias why and when lampooned . 

with his unadvifednefs.—Dion fays, that he was induced to behave fo 
towards Scaurus becaufe he had alluded to fome impious homicide, 
or, rather perhaps feafl which Tiberius was fuppofed to have made of 
a murdered perfon. And yet after having pofitively faid fo, he, imme- 
mediately after, feems to fay enough to make it queftionable^—viz— 

h yriv v.xt £7r; tutu xxTyyofwQi), x\\' us rnv A tsiXXzv ii.iy.myivY.us. — l llis, WC 

affirm, appears to contradict what he had faid before, for by this it 
appears that he, as Tacitus, we find, fays, was accufed for his offence 
before fome magiftrate. Now if he was accufed of this offence, and 
not of this only, but of having committed adultery with Livilla, why 
would Dion have us to think that Tiberius anticipated his condemna¬ 
tion by forcing him to become an Ajax to himfelf ?—that he would 
not fuffer his guilt to be made manifeft ?—when he might have put 
him to death publicly, either to that of Saturninus, or, to that of 
Sabinus. 

But why fhould Scaurus be faid to have been accufed of having 
committed adultery with Livilla r—Was Livilla then alive ?—Had file 
not then been dead more than two years?—And, had fhe not been a 
widow nine years, at her death ?—And does not Tacitus fay, iv. 3, 
that Sejanus was, before her hufband was dead, too familiar with her? 
Dion not only fays that Scaurus was profecuted on this account, but 
that many others were punifhed on the fame account —-iroXhm yxp or, 
xact x\\oi (h' xvTtiv } ot yev ni x^Qeixs, oi etc <rvx.o<pxyTBizs, sy.oXxcrOviarxv .—= 

But if many had been punifhed on that account, did not Sejanus know 
it, and, of courfe, how very common fhe was?—Why then did he 
apply to Tiberius, in th€ year 778, that is, two years after the death 
of Drufus, for leave to marry her?—And why does Suetonius fay, 
iii. 65, that he continued his fuit till he was made conful—that is, till 


O o 2 












228 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

the year 784, when Tiberius, it feems, ftill gave him reafon to hope 
that his defire would foon be accomplifhed ?—And when if we may 
believe Tacitus, v. 6, vi. 8, it was accomplifhed. Will it be faid that 
her infamous conduct did not come to light till the beginning of the 
year 785?—That is, as Tacitus fays, vi. 2, fome time after fhe was 
dead ?—Thofe many then muft have been punifhed, for having been 
too familiar with her, after the beginning of that year. 

Scaurus then was, by the account of both Tacitus and Dion, ac- 
cufed, in the year 785, not only of having reflected, notwithstanding 
the fate of Saturninus and Sabinus, on the conduct of Tiberius, his 
then fuperannuated fovereign, in a tragedy, which Dion fays, he en¬ 
titled Atreus, but of having been guilty, with many others, of adul¬ 
tery with Livia or Livilla, who, Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 628, D., was, 
two years before, by the order of Tiberius, at the requeft of her own 
mother Antonia, put to death. 

Tacitus alfo fays, that Scaurus was accufed of having attended the 
facred rites of the Magi, who, he fays, ii. 32, had, with the Mat¬ 
hematicians, been, in the year, 769, by the Senate, expelled from 
Rome.—Of his having attended thofe, Dion fays not a word. 

Thofe feveral charges then feem to have been of a very different 
nature from each other.—The firft was of a political nature—the 
fecond of a moral—and the third of a religious.—A ftrange mixture 
to have been thought to be in one who undertook to reprobate the 
atrocity of his fovereign! — Let us proceed to enquire if they really 
were of three diftinft forts—and, whether they may not be made to 
appear to have been of pretty nearly the fame. 

Firft, let us enquire who was this Atreus, and what tragical event 
his hiftory furnifhcs : 



229 


Tiberias why and when lampooned. 

Atreus, we are told, was the king of Mycena?, and, as Strabo feems 
to intimate, i. 16, made fo for his fuperior knowledge of the motions 
of the heavenly bodies. He was alfo, we are told, the hufband of 
Europa, and the brother of Thyeftes, who, we are alfo told, feduced 
Europa, and had children by her, one of whom Atreus killed, and, 
having drefted the limbs, placed them in a difh before Europa and 
Thyeftes, at an entertainment. But how could Scaurus have con¬ 
trived to refle£t on the condudt of Tiberius in a tragedy of which fuch 
was the argument?—Had Tiberius ever committed fuch like atrocity? 
Was he not very much aiTe&ed at his family lofles ?—And does not 
his kinfman Clemens fay* that he wept very plentifully at the reco¬ 
very of Fauftus and Mathilda?—And did he not, both before and after, 
feel for the diftreftes of his fubje&s ?—In what then could the fimi- 
larity between thofe monarchs have conftfted?—In order to enable our- 
felves to form a conje&ure as to the nature of this fimilarity let us 
confult Athenagoras, an early Chriftian writer. He, in his apology 
for Chriftians, p. 4, C., fays—there are three charges, which are 
ufually made againft us—viz—atheifm, Thycjlean banquets , and CEdo- 
podean Connexions—T pix iit npiv tyn\vi[AaTx t x6r}0Trirx f ©vzrztx 
Sum*, OidtnoSutss (jugets .—Now if Thyeftean banquets was one of the 
charges againft the early Chriftians what but the communion of the 
body and blood of Chrift could have been the ground of that charge ? 
Had then Tiberius attended that communion?—If fo, why may not 
Scaurus be thought to have fancied fome kind of a fimilarity between 
the imagined atrocities of thofe two monarchs?—Of this, more pre- 
fently, when we come to confider what Suetonius fays. 

Again—Tacitus fays, vi. 38, that Fulcinius Trio, in the year 778, 
indignant at the increaftng prevalence of accufers, left in his laft will 

* De gestis P. chapter M3. 















I 


230 

Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

t 

fome fevere reflections, not only on Macro and the more diffolute of 
Caefar’s freedmen, but on Tiberius himfelf, who, he alfo fays, chap. 30, 
had, but the year before, difcouraged accufers, accufing him, not as 
a monfter of cruelty and luff, but as a dotard, and as an .exile.— 
Tiberius, fays Tacitus, caufed his will to be publifiied, and thereby 
proved himfelf to be a defpifer of his own fhame. 

Laftly—Tacitus fays, in the next chapter, 39, that Paconianus 
was, for fome verfes which he, while in Jirifon, made on Tiberius, 
itrangled. 

Let us now hear what Suetonius fays of thofe fatyrical pieces pub- 
lifhed againft Tiberius, 

Suetonius fays, iii. 45, that Tiberius, when old, and after his de¬ 
baucheries were known, and therefore after the death of Sejanus, 
when he was, as Tacitus fays, moft cruel and lewd, expofed for his 
lewdnefs in an Atellane exode, and that the attack on his character 
was received with applaufe. 

Again—chapter 59, he informs us that Tiberius did (not by any 
deputy, but by the impulfe of his own favage temper,) many things 
fo cruelly and atrocioufly, through an affectation of gravity, and byway 
of correcting the (mb lie manners , that fome farcaftic poetaflers made 

the following verfes on him:— 

< 

ASPER et immitis, breviter vis omnia dicam ? 

Difpeream fi te mater amare poteft. 

Non es eques—Quare? non funt tibi millia centum; 

Omnia fi quadras et Rhodos exilium efi. 

* Suetonius, iii. 61 . 


t 


231 




Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

AUREA mutafti Saturni faecula CaTar: 

Incolumi nam te, ferrea femper erunt. 

FASTIDIT vinum, quia jam fitit ifte cruorem, 

Tam bibit hunc avide, quam bibit ante merum. 

Afpice felicem ftbi, noil tibi Romule Syilam 
Et Marium ft vis adfpice, fed reducem. 

Nec non Antoni civilla bella moventis 
Nec femel infeiftas adfpice coede manus. 

Et die Roma perit: regnabit fanguine multo, 

Ad regnum quifquis venit ab exilio. 

Now what punifhment did he inflift on the authors of thofe verfes, 
(for Suetonius feems to fay that they were written by more than one*.) 
Did he tear them limb from limb, and make a Thyeftean feaft of 
them?—Not he indeed. Far, far from it. He did not make the lead 
attempt to difeover the authors. At firfi , fays Suetonius, he would 
have it thought that the authors of them did not mean what they faid, 
that they were difafFe&ed to him and impatient of his government.— 
And, that he ufed to fay often—let fucli hate rae, if the reft do not. 
And then, fays Suetonius, he gave proofs of what they had faid. 

Now when, if thofe verfes were made at the fame time, can we 
fuppofe that they were publifhed ?—When did Tiberius, by attempt¬ 
ing to ameliorate the manners of the Romans, change the golden age 
into iron?—And when did he, by the fame attempt, caufe a civil war 
« at Rome like that of Antony ? 

* Those verses seem to have been written by three different persons and at 
three different times.—For, the writer of the two first pairs addresses Tiberius 
himself as an untitled person.—The writer of the third pair addresses him as 
C®sar.—The writer of the remaining four addresses, not Tiberius himself, but 
a third person. 























232 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

We have already feen, CHAP, vi, that Tiberius was, for fome time 
of his reign, accounted, by every body, a moft excellent prince, and 
that he was, by no other writers but Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion, 
faid to have been, at any time in his reign, a bad prince—and, we 
there alfo faw that thefe three writers are by no means agreed as to 
the time when he began to be a bad prince—and, laftly, we there faw 
that Suetonius himfelf fays that he was not a bad prince till after the 
difafter at Fidenae—and, that he became, foon after, totally depraved 
and totally cruel.—What elfe then can we think, than that Tiberius 
muft, after he retired from Fidenae to Capreae, and before he became 
fo totally depraved and cruel, have attempted to correct the diflolute 
manners of the Romans ?—And that thofe verfes were publifhed in 
that interval?—Now if this was the time when he made this attempt 
it muft have been made after the end of 780, or in 781, or 782—or, 
as Paterculus fays, ii. 130, while his mind was fo overcome with grief. 
But would he, who, as Tacitus fays, iv. 57, retired thither for the 
purpofe of concealing his own vices—who, as Suetonius fays, iii. 41, 
had no fooner returned to Capreae, than he became totally inattentive 
to the concerns of the republic, have given himfelf the leaft trouble 
about the manners of the people of Rome?—If he then became him¬ 
felf totally depraved and totally cruel ?—What fays Paterculus of his 
conduct at the time?—He fays, ii. 126, that Tiberius had, in 783, 
habituated all to do what was right, either by his example, or, by his 
authority—redte faciendi omnibus aut incufla voluntas, aut impofita 
neceffitas—facere re&e cives fuos Princeps optimus faciendo docet. 

We have now feen that the golden age of Rome is faid by thofe 
libellers to have ceafed about 781 or 782, and that the iron then 
began.—We have alfo feen that this change is faid by Suetonius to 
have been effedted by the efforts of Tiberius to corredl the manners of 



233 


Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

the Romans. We are moreover told by the fame perfons that Tiberius, 
by his fe verity in correcting the manners of the Romans, caufed a civil 
war like that of Antony. Now in what year of Tiberius did this civil 
war happen? 

Suetonius himfelf, we find, though he in one chapter, 37, mentions 
the care which Tiberius took to prevent /editions, and the feverity with 
which he punifhed popular tumults , takes not the lead notice of this 
civil war. And, though he fays that Tiberius, more than once, un¬ 
dertook to correCf the manners of the Romans, yet he does not fay 
that any tumult arofe on that account. On the contrary, he feems 
to admit, 33, 34, 35, that the people fubmitted quietly to all his re¬ 
gulations for that purpofe. What Suetonius here feems to admit, 
Tacitus, we find, expreilly affirms, iv. 62, where he fay9, that the 
people of Rome, were, in the year 780, contented to go to Fidense 
(that is, as Strabo fays, v. p. 159, about 4 or 5 miles from Rome,) 
to fee cruel fports, becaufe Tiberius had forbidden fuch fpeCtacles to 
be exhibited at Rome—Adfluere avidi talium, imperitante Tiberio 
procul voluptatibus habitis, virilis ac muliebris fexus, omnis setatis, 
ob propinquitatem loci effufius. 

The civil war then, alluded to in thofe verfes as having been caufed 
by the rigour of Tiberius, in his extreme zeal to correCt the manners 
of the Romans, appears to have happened, if at all, after the year 780. 
Again—as the fecond verfe feems to imply that Li via was alive, when 
thofe verfes were written, they mult have been written before the year 
782, and therefore in the year 781.—Befides—what popular tumult 
happened at Rome in the reign of Tiberius, on account of his feverity 
in correcting the manners of the people, that could be faid to be at 











234 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

all like the civil war caufed by Anthony, but that caufed by the re- 
predion of the moft grievous pelt, introduced by the artifice of Tibe¬ 
rius—or, that caufed by the, we know not what, foon after the death 
of Sabinus—or, that caufed by the repreflion of the execrable fuper- 
ftition?—or, that caufed by the prevalence of accufers, which Seneca 
reprefents as worfe than any civil war ?—and which he feems to inti¬ 
mate, by the fubjoined flory of Paullus, was caufed by religious accu¬ 
fers?—Now all tbefe we have fhewn to have been the fame, and to 
have happened in the year 781. That Suetonius himfelf muft have 
meant that it happened in this very year why fhould we not conclude, 
as, we find, he fays, iii. 37, that Tiberius moft grievoufly fupprefled 
popular tumults, and took particular care that they fhould never 
happen again ?—Populares tumultus exortos graviilime coercuit; et 
ne orirentur fedulo cavit. 

Having now feemingly afeertained the year when thofe verfes were 
written let us next proceed to examine the fevcral charges contained 
in them. 

The writer of the firft two pairs reproaches him with having been 
fent to Rhodes for afpiring at the fovereignty.-*—The writer of the third 
pair accufes him of having been the author of an amazing change of 
the times.—The writer of the remaining four accufes him of having 
been, by his cruelty, the caufe of a civil war, which cruelty he feems 
to have imputed to his baniJJiment. But with what propriety could the 
fecond writer have faid that Tiberius, while Caefar, and in fafety, 
caufed fo amazing a change in the times ?—And, with what propriety 
could the third writer have faid that he, by his cruelty, caufed a civil 
war at Rome, and that his cruelty was owing to his banifhment ?— 
that is, furely, to Rhodes. How could his cruelty have been im¬ 
puted to his refidence at Rhodes, whither he, we have feen, went in 


235 


Tiberius why and when lampooned . 

the year 749—that is, more than 30 years before?—Was it, as wt 
have already hinted CHAP. ii. p. 16, caufed by what then happened 
in Judea?—Of this more prefently. The third writer, we find, fays 
that he defpifed or hated wine. Now when did he, who, for his im¬ 
moderate love of wine, ufed to be nick-named Mero, begin to defpife 
it?—and, for this reafon—becaufe he now thirds for blood?—quia 
jam fitit ide cruorem.—What blood had he wantonly fpilt before the 
beginning of the year 782 ?—Have we not feen, CHAP, vi, that he 
was a raoft excellent prince till after the difader at Fidenae?—And 
did not Paterculus remark to Vinicius, in the year 783, how he had, 
for the three years before, been laboring under the preffure of extreme 
grief?—And yet, he mud, if the following words—viz—Tam bibit 
hunc avide, quam bibit ante merum—have been underflood rightly, 
have fpilt it profufely.—But who ever heard of any tyrant drinking 
blood?—To third for blood is what we fometimes hear: but further 
than this the metaphor is never ufed. And after having diflurbed our 
imaginations with all thofe fuppofed butcheries and blood-bibings, he 
begs us to take notice how happy he was—Afpice felicem fibi. 

How then fhould thofe verfes be underflood, fo as to make them 
have the appearance of verifimilitude, and to remove that horrible 
pi&ure which one of them prefents to our imagination of a truly 
cyclopian repafl ?—Suppofe we once more rede£t a little on the nature 
of one of the three charges which Athenagoras told the Emperors, 
M. Aur. Antoninus and L. Aurel. Commodus, the early unbelievers 
ufed to make againfl believers—viz—a fondnefs for Thyeflean ban¬ 
quets— Qvt<rtix Siiwv*—and then we fhall, probably, be no longer in 

doubt about the meaning of thofe verfes. We fhall be inclined to 

\ ' * • • 

P p 2 





236 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

think that they may be a little metaphorical—that the blood which 
Tiberius was fo fond of quaffing was no other than the blood of our 
Lord. If our conje&ure be approved of by any, fuch may be difpofed 
to think that Tiberius was charged with having learnt to be cruel 
while he was at Rhodes, becaufe he, as we have already hinted, was 
there firft brought acquainted with the arrival of the wife men from 
the eaft at Jerufalem—the fummoning of a council on that account— 
and, the confequent maflacre of the infants at Bethlehem. 

Again—Suetonius, chapter 62, enumerates fome of the more atro¬ 
cious cruelties which Tiberius ufed to infli£t on fuch as were ob¬ 
noxious to him, not any where, but at Caprece, and, as he feems to 
intimate, after the death of his two grandfons Nero and Drufus, of 
whom Drufus, the furvivor, was, fays Tacitus, vi. 23, ftarved to 
death in the year 786, and therefore after Agrippa, Herod had been re¬ 
admitted into the family of Tiberius. Suetonius having faid all this 
in the 62d chapter, begins the 63d with telling us how the people, in 
the mean time , hated, and detefted, and reviled him, and in what prae- 
trepidation he, who, but two or three years before, was happy i'n him- 
felf—felix fibi—lived—Quam vero inter haec non modo invifus, ac 
deteflabilis, fed praetrepidus quoque atque etiam contumeliis obnoxius 
vixerit, multa indicia funt.—But, if he had, four years before, em¬ 
braced the faith of Chrift, can we wonder that he was fo hated and 
calumniated by his unbelieving fubje£ts now?—If he was fo detefted 
by his fubje&s in general, why fhould V. Maximus have told us that 
the people of Rome were ready to crufh Sejanus, late in the year 784, 
and that the fame good order was continued, no one knows how long 
after that?—Why does Philo tell us that the Jews continued his bell: 
friends, and that no potentate was more honorable in his old age ?— 
Why did Agrippa refide in his family, the laft three years of his reign, 


237 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

and, fpeak fo refpe&fully of him to Caius?—And why does Jofephus 
fay that Tiberius might have lived in peace if he had not troubled 
himfelf fo much about futurity ? 

Laftly—Suetonius fays, chapter 66, that reproaches, from all quar¬ 
ters, fcorched or burnt his anxious mind—and, that, among the reft, 
every one of the condemned perfons openly upbraided him to his face, 
or, by means of libels ftuck up in the Orcheftra,* with his multifarious 
mifdeeds—Urebant infuper anxiam mentem varia undique convitia, 
nullo non damnatorum omne probri genus coram , vel per Iibellos in 
Orchejlra pofitos, ingerente.—And did even the condemned perfons 
too join in the general outcry againft the multifarious mifdeeds of 
their fovereign and father, did they, after having by their offences 
forfeited their lives, dare to revile him to his face , and, to expofe 
catalogues of the feveral forts of his mifdeeds in the Orchejlra? —- 
Has it not been ever allowed to be intolerable prefumption for any 
one to publifh libels againft thofe in power, efpecially againft his 
fovereign ?—How then is it that thofe condemned perfons were per¬ 
mitted to employ the few days which remained, and for which they 
were indebted folely to the humane interpofition of Tiberius, in revi¬ 
ling him, moft excellent as he had been, and aged as he then was?— 
Were they the proper perfons to corredt his faults ?—Why are they 
faid to have been more forward than others to expofe them ?—Could 
all this have been true?—Has it not, at leaft, fomething like the ap¬ 
pearance of being incredible?—Was ever an old tyrant, hackneyed in 
the habits of cruelty and profligacy of every fort, known, as long as 
he was continuing in the purfuit of his darling courfes, to fuffer him- 

* How those damnati found means to see him, especially if he was then at 
Capreae—and, how they found means to fix their pasquinades in the Orchestra 
we are at a loss to conceive. 


238 


2'iberius why and when lampooned . 

felf to be impeded by the general outcries of his fubje&s ?—efpecially 
of thofe who had forfeited their lives ?—or, to fuffer remorfe for his 
deeds ?—How then can Tiberius be fuppofed to have fuffered himfelf 
to be reviled for his manifold enormities by all his fubjefts? —and, 
by the moft depraved amongft them ?—who had forfeited their lives, 
and were, by his clemency, only permitted to live ?—How did this 
old, decrepit, deformed, exiled, hated, detefted, blood bibing, quaking, 
anxious, credulous tyrant behave on this occafion ?—Would he fuffer 

thofe numerous publications of his evil courfes to pafs unnoticed ?—* 

» 

and, the authors of them to efcape with impunity ?—this Suetonius 
has taken care not to fay;—he only fays—quibus quidcm diverfiffime 
afficiebatur—but, had he not before faid that the anxious mind of 
Tiberius was fcorched or nettled by the varia undique convitia?—- 
How then is it that he was fo very differently affe&ed by thofe libels 
■—libelli—of the condemned perfons ? 

Let us, laftly, enquire when this general defamation of Tiberius 
took place. 

That it could not have happened before the decree, forbidding im¬ 
mediate executions, was paffed—that is, as we have feen, CHAP, ix, 
before the crucifixion of our Lord, or, before the year 781, is 
plain. That it could not have happened before the end of the year 
783 is not much lefs fo, becaufe Dion affures us, I. 58, p. 623, C., 
that deluded and believing perfons, in the end of that year, ere&ed, 
every where , to Tiberius and Sejanus, Jlatucs of brafs , and procured 
their likcncjfes , and placed thrones of gold for both of them in the 
Theatres —rurois ot xvOpuirot xiraru^oi xxi 0 (nrsvovrer, ^x\x.us ts xvtois 
a.’Travrxga ek tS icra t^xerxv, xxt rxis ypxtpxis avvsypx<pov , ^itypuz rs vmyjpwjHs es 

rx Qtxrpx xu.<poh iKruptpov .—And that it is not likely to have happened 


239 


Tiberius why and when lampooned. 

before the end of the year 784 why fhould we not conclude from 
what Suetonius himfelf fays, chapter 61—viz—that the more atro¬ 
cious of his crimes were committed after the death of Sejanus, who 
was put to death in O&ober in that year. 





240 


> 


CHAPTER XIV. 

> 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

To any one who confiders that Livia, the mother of Tiberius, 
was intimate with Salome, the fitter of Herod, before the death of 
that prince—that fhe is faid to have made many coftly prefents to the 
Jews for the fervice of the temple—that Auguftus and Agrippa were 
both attached to Herod, and contributors to the fervice of the temple 
—that Antonia, the fifter-in-law of Tiberius, was alfo intimate with 
Berenice, the mother of Herod Agrippa—that Herod Agrippa appears 
to have been fo named from Agrippa, the friend of Auguftus—that he 
was educated with Claudius, the nephew, and Drufus, the fon of 
Tiberius, and continued his intimacy with the latter till his death— 
that he then left Italy, and reftded in Judea, becaufe Tiberius could 
not endure to fee any of his fon’s intimates—that, after a few years, 
he returned to Italy, and was received by Tiberius with open arms, 
and requefted to remain with his family.* To any one who confiders 

* Strabo says of Augustus, xvi. p. 526, that he honored Herod and all his 
family— K xicrxp %xi tus yas tn^rtat ra Hfa^a, xxi ryv laXwfAW, kxi 

rxvrys OvyxTtpx BsptviKW, 










241 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

all this—the attachment of Tiberius to the Jews mull appear to have' 
been very great. But this is not all the evidence which may be 
adduced in fupport of this point. Strabo fays, xvi. p. 463, that Tibe¬ 
rius was educated by one of the two Athenodorus’s, of Tarfus—that 
the one who inftru&ed him was the fon of Sando, a Canaanite —A 3 pts 
xvtvs (Tarfus) yiyovxai ruv [/.tv eoixav Avnnxrpoi ri ttxt Ap^idn^os, kxi 
N i?wp in <}' ArQivo'bvpoi Svo uv o [xiv K opovXiuv y.x\ 8 [xtvos, o Ss ra 'ZxrbuvoSy ov xai 
KxvtxviTYiv (pxcn xi to KU^fis Tiros t Kxiaxpos xxQriyYicrxTO, x.xi Tigris etv%i pnyxXr.s, 

He feems, by the evidence of Suetonius, to have been, when he was 
about 40, fond of attending to the inftru&ion of Jewith do&ors— 
viz—Diogenes, and Theodorus, of Gadara—the former of whom ufed, 
as Suetonius himfelf fays, iii. 32, to lefture on the fabbaths —and the 
latter, as Quin&ilian* and Senecaf fay, was a famous leader of a fe£t. 

Let us proceed to enquire on what terms he and the Jews were 
during his monarchy. 

* Quinctilian, iii. 1, p. 127—Prascipue tamen in se converterunt studia 
tlpollodorus Pergamenus , qui preceptor Apollonias Caesaris Augusti fuit: et, 
Theodorus GaduieuSy qui se dici maluit Rhodium; quem studiose audisse, cum 
hi earn insulam secessisset, dicitur Tiberius Cassar. Hi diversas opiniones tra- 
dideruut, appellatique inde Jpollodorei et Tlieodoret\ ad morem certas in philo- 
?ophia sectas sequendi. Sed Apollodorei piEecepta magis ex discipulis cognos- 
cas. Plura scrips!t Theodorus. 

- v . 13, p. 278—Ideoque miror inter duos diversarum sect arum vetut 

duces non mediocri contentione quassitum, singulisne quaestionibus subjiciendi 
cssent loci, ut Theodore placet; an prills docendus judex quani movendus, ut 
pra?cipit Apollodorus. 

-— ii. 11, p. 94—Alius percontanti, Theedoreus an Apollodoreus esset. 

Ego, inquit, parmularius sum. 

Strabo, xvi. p. 522, Ex $1 ruv T xdxpuiv 0 Qioovpos 0 y.xQ y//.xs primp. 

t Seneca, lx. p. 103—Contr.—Primum non apud eundem praceptorem stu- 
duimus. Tu Apollodorum habuisti, cui semper narrare placet: ego Theodo- 
rain cui non semper.—Syriacus to Niger. 














242 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion. 

John the Evangelift informs us that the rulers of the Jews faid to 
Pilate, when our Lord was crucified—-that is—in the 14th year of Tibe¬ 
rius—“ Whofoever maketh himfelf a king fpeaketh againft Caefar,”— 
“ We have no king but Casfar.”—Now can it be thought that the rulers 
of the Jews would have faid fo, by way of influencing their governor 
to comply, on this occafion, if they had not found the government of 
Tiberius very mild till that time ?—That they had found it fo till that 
time is plain from their having been indulged with that moft extraor¬ 
dinary privilege of demanding every year, at the paffover, the releafe 
of a criminal, however atrocious his crime ; and that they muft have 
found it fo for two or three years later, who can doubt, that confidcrs 
that they were, till the churches had reft, indulged with the privilege 
of fending to Jlrange cities for tranfgreflors of the law—a privilege 
which, as Jofephus fays, B. i. 24, ( 3 was granted to no other people. 
Now as this latter privilege was, as Jofephus alfo fays, granted to the 
Jews by Auguftus, why fhould we not fuppofe that the former privilege 
was, in all probability, granted by him ?—If then thofe two moft ex¬ 
traordinary privileges were granted to them by Auguftus, may we not 
conclude that he had the greateft veneration for the objedt of their 
worfhip ?—This indeed is, we find, attefted by Agrippa, Philo, and 
Jofephus, each of whom fays of him* that he was ever zealous for 
the honor of the moft high God— tot rmrror ©EOT— and the two 

* 0ietx%xto yxp ejc ruv 7 rpoao^uv x'ixyi<j9xi Qvuixs zxrz\zis ohoxxvTtar 

en rmTH ©Efl Xx9 SXXfW VJASpxV, XI XXI V'JV E77<TeA«v7X/, XpVES EUTl 

dto xxi rxvpos. p. go] y p_ 

«Aa utus uonuro 7 npi rx rj[AZTtpx y &>$-e (amov « 'jrxvotxios xvx9r>(Axai 7roAj>« 
rtXsixis to ttpov vi[aujv ixoarpA^tjEf 7rpoax%xs xxi ch’ xiuvos xvxyztrQxi Qvcrixs evte- 
>.tyeis oMkxvtus xx9 exx^w ypAtpxv ix r uv i^iuv irpocro^uv xTrxpyviv Tfi T'STZTO 
0En xi xxi fxsypi >vv t'nirzXwTxi, xxi sis xtxxv vTUTtXs^vjovrxi, iawv(ax 
rpoiruv ovrus xvroxpxToptxuv. p r 'jg.’i. E 

Josephus, A. xvi. 6. (3 . 7 . f . r, £ 


24-3 

Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

laft mentioned fay that he was favorable to his people, every where.*' 
So zealous for the honor of the molt high God, and fo kind to his 
chofen people, every where, was Auguftus, that the Jews of Judea, 
with probably Joazar, the high-prieft, at their head, in conjun&ioti 
with 8,000 of thofe at Rome, (who, we take it for granted, were 
libertines) petitioned him, foon after the accelTioii of Archelaus, to 
deliver them from their allegiance to their lawful prince, and to take 
them under his immediate prote£lion. 

Suetonius fays of Auguftus, ii. 93, that he had the greateft venera¬ 
tion for all thofe foreign modes of worfhip which were ancient and 
received—Peregrinarum ca^remoniarum veteres ftudiofiflime coluit. 

Now as Auguftus was fo very partial to the Jews, on account of 
their religion, and, as Paterculus fays, ii. 123, on his death bed, 
earneftly defired Tiberius to adhere to the fame fyftem as had already 
been purfued by them, and as Tiberius, Strabof and others fav, 
religioufly followed all the ways of Auguftus—and, was, as 1 acitus 
fays, A. ii. 65, for nothing fo anxious as to let every thing remain as 

* Philo, in Flac. p. 755, D., calls Augustus the savioi' and the benefactor 
of the Jews—r vs yxp Yt^iTipxs, w 0 o-uryp xxt tvspyirvs Zs'oxror. 

Philo, p. 785, F., says, that Augustus was so very favorable to the Jew* 
of Rome, that all nations, even those that disliked them, behaved respectfully 
towards them. Josephus, contra Ap. I. ii. 5, says—Nos autem maximo 
Cacsare utimur teste auxiiii atque fidei quam circa eum contra Kgyplios gessi- 
raus: necnon et senatu ejusque consultis, et epistolis Cassaris Augusti, quibus 
nostra merita comprobantur.—Those letters, continues he, Apion should have 
read, and not those only, but those also, written by the greatest Roman em¬ 
perors—amongst whom, he surely reckons Tiberius. 

+ Strabo, vi. sub fine xxt vvv 0 ^ix^s^xfxsvos i/os sxeivov, ntxpiyti T iQtpios, kxvovx 
($ioniv)&Ecof, x.xi tuv 1Tposx'yfAXTwv Trotaixevos txtivov xxt x vtov ot TTXi'ozs xvth } 
Tep(J.xvtx.os rt xxi Apvo-ot, vjrxytivrss ruj 7 rxrpi. 


Q q 2 

















244 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

it was, and, as he alfo fays, H. v. 9, kept the Jews quiet all the time 
of his reign, why fhould we not think that he was equally favorable 
to them ?—Of this, at leaft, we are allured, and by the Evangelifts, 
that the afore-mentioned two molt remarkable indulgences were by 
him continued—the former till the crucifixion of our Lord, and the 
latter , till, at leaft, two or three years later—and if Tiberius did not 
then deprive them of it, no doubt, till the end of his reign. Can we 
wonder then that the rulers of the Jews fhould have been fo ready to 
reply to Pilate, on the former occafion^-“ If thou let this man go 
thou art not Caefar’s friend.”—“ Whofoever maketli himfelf a king 
fpeaketh againft Caftar.”—“ We have no king but Caefar,”—efpecially 
if Tiberius had, as Jofephus fays, A. xviii. 4, then reprimanded 
Pilate, fo f«verely, for having attempted to pollute their holy city. 

This continuance of thofe two privileges, it will furely be allowed, 
feems to prove that Tiberius muft have treated the Jews with the 
greateft indulgence, till the crucifixion of our Lord—or rather, till we 
know not how long after. How then is it that many, if not moft 
divines, among whom, we perceive, one or two fuper-eminent pro- 
feftors* have thought that the power of infli&ing capital punifhments 

* Michaelis, vol. iii. part. 1, ch. 8, 4, says, that Stephen hardly suffered 

martyrdom before Pilate was recalled from the government of Judea, (viz— 
788, A. D. 41,) for under Pilate the Jews had not the power of inflicting capital 
punishments. If, says he, this be true, Saul's conversion must have happened 
likewise after Pilate’s recall—(that is—probably after the death of Tiberius, 
who died March 22d, 790.) 

Marsh, his equally learned annotator, after having taken it for granted that 
the Jews certainly had not the power of stoning blasphemers under Pilate —and, 
observed that Pilate was recalled early in the year (as he says) 37, says—it is 
not improbable that the Sanhedrin obtained from his successor a privilege 
which they did not enjoy under Pilate : And, if they did, they, of course, took 
earliest opportunity of making use pf it. 




245 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

was, before our Lord fufFered, taken from the Jews ?—On what evi¬ 
dence can they have perfuaded themfelves that their opinion was 
grounded ?—fcil—On the prefumed incontrovertiblenefs of that affir¬ 
mation of the rulers of the Jews to Pilate—“ It is not lawful for us to 
put any man to death.”—But if this affirmation fo clearly and un¬ 
doubtedly means that it was not lawful to ftone blafphemers or adul¬ 
terers, &c. why, it may be afked, has John fubjoined that explana¬ 
tory interlocution—this is to be underftood of the nature of the death 
he was to undergo. Belides—why would they prefer the evidence of 
men, who were fo bafe, as to fuborn falfe witneftes againft perfect 
innocence, to that of him who came into the world for the foie pur- 
pofe of bearing witnefs to the truth ?—What faid our Lord who was 
that truth ? —He, fays Matthew, v. 18, and Luke, xvi. 17, declared 
unto the Jews—“ Verily I fay unto you—till heaven and earth pafs, 
one jot or one tittle (hall in no wife pafs from the law, till all be ful¬ 
filled.”—And when was all fulfilled?—Not furely before his death, as 
fome would perfuade us, but at his death—when he faid—“ It is 
Unified.”—Did not the Jews make this declaration to Pilate after they 
had fought to put Jefus to death for blafphemy—and, when they had 
accufed him as a mover of fedition?—If they had not the power of 
putting any one to death, why ffiould they have offered Judas fo hand- 
fome a reward for his bafenefs ?—And how could his offence have 
been fo very heinous as fome of thofe very perfons contend?—Had 
not thofe very rulers previouflv fought to ftone him ?—And had not 
this been the caufe of his retiring from Judea into another country 
and there concealing himfelf?—And did they not, but a little before, 
“ take counfel to put him to death —And, not Jefus only but 
Lazarus alfo?—All this happened before the death of Jefus.—And 
why, if they had been then deprived of the power, are they faid to 
have ufed it fo often in the courfe of the two next years ?—Why did 




I 


246 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion. 

the Sanhedrin take counfel to flay the Apoftles ? A£ts, v. 33. Why 
are the libertines faid to have fuborned men to accufe Stephen of 
having fpoken againft God and againft Mofes ?—-And why did the 
Sanhedrin take cognizance of his offence?—And when he faid, before 
them—“ Behold, &c.”—why did they inftantly flone him ?—Why 
would thofe D. Ds. and S. T. Ps. overlook this evidence of the Evan- 
gelifts, and not only this, but alfo that of Agrippa to Caius, and that 
of Philo, and that of the Talmud of Jerufaiem?—Agrippa, in his 
letter to Caius, p. 799, F., fays, (after having extolled the reverence 
of Auguflus and Agrippa towards the mofl high God)— c< And as to 
“ your other grandfather Tiberius was not he entirely of the fame 
“ difpofition towards our temple, as the two juft mentioned ? Did he 
“ not, through all the twenty-three years of his reign, preferve the 
“ holy fervice entire, as it was at firft?”—Thus faid Agrippa to Caius 
only three years after the death of Tiberius. And Philo, we find, 
fays, in his life of Mofes, p. 508, A., that his law alone had remained, 
as it was at firft, to the prefent time, firm, unfhaken, unaltered, fealed 
with the impreflion of nature—and, that it was his hope that it would 
remain fo as long as the fun, the moon, the heavens, and the whole 
univerfe fhould remain—that the Jews had not fuffered a letter of it 
to be altered though they themfelves had undergone many viciflitudes. 

xx £e r«r« /xova fizQxix, xcrxXzvxx, xxpxoxvxx, xxQxirzp a<ppxy7cri <Pvteus olvtw 
cncr’cixxr^zvx, y.zvst xtxytojs xfi tjs v)[xzpxs zypxty-o [M%pi vvv, xxi irpos rav zttzitx 
vxvrx ^ixfxzvziv zKitts avrx xiuvx uanzp xQxvxxx, tvs av v>Xios xxi cte?,»jv>} xxi a 

rxs tspx'jos rz xxi xoa-^os — Laftly—the Talmud of Jerufaiem aflerts 
that the power of punifhing capitally was taken from Ifrael, not be¬ 
fore the death of our Lord, but about two years and three or four 
months after that event—or, about the time when the perfecution 
which followed the death of Stephen ceafed—or, when Paul returned 
from Damafcus to Jerufaiem and the churches had reft.—It aflerts 


/ 


247 

Tiberias ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

that it was taken from them forty years before the deftru&ion of 
Jerufalem, now Jerufaiem was deftroyed on the ioth of Auguft, in 
the fecond year of Vefpalian, which began on the 2d of July, 823.— 
If then this power was, as Lightfoot fays, taken from them precifely 
forty years before the deftru&ion of the temple, it mull have been 
taken from them Auguft the ioth, 783—or, about the beginning of 
the 17th of Tiberius. But perhaps the Talmud only meant to fay 
that this power was taken from them in the courfe of the fortieth 
year before that event—or, in the courfe of the 17th of Tiberius. 
However if all power of punilhing capitally was taken from IfraeJ, 
before our Lord fuffered, as thofe divines would perfuade us—or, in 
the year 783, as the Talmud of Jerufalem pretends, who but Tiberius 
can be thought to have done it?—And if he did, mull not the Jews, 
who, as Jofephus fays, A. xvii. 15, B. ii. 6, fent ambaffudors to 
Rome, to requell, (on condition, that their hierarchy might be con¬ 
tinued as before,) to be taken under the government of Rome in all 
other matters—and, becaufe Archelaus had trangreffed the law, by 
marrying the widow of his brother Alexander, when his brother had 
left children by her—and, becaufe he had alfo polluted the temple, 
on a folemn feaft, by flaying many of the congregation—who, as he 
alfo fays, A. xv. 7, would not permit the leall innovation to be 
made in their religious affairs—who, a few years after, procured the 
recall of Pilate becaufe he offered an infult to the moll high God— 
and who flew to arms as foon as they heard of the blafphemous in¬ 
tention of Caius—if Tiberius, repeat we, took from the Jews the 
grand fupport of their religion, and without the leaft provocation, can 
we fuppofe that they, who ever manifefted fo much zeal for their law, 
would have fubmitted to it, and without even the appearance of oppo- 
fltion ?—That they muff have been fo unaccountably paflive is plain 
bv what they Laid to Pilate—'“ If thou let this man go thou art not 














248 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

Caefar’s friend.”—“ Whofoever raaketh himfelf a king fpeaketh againft 
Caefar.”—“ We have no king but Caefar.”—And, by what Tacitus fays 
of them, hift. v. 9, under Tiberius the Jews had reft—Sub 4 iberio 
quies—not fo under Caius—for they flew to arms as foon as they 
knew that he was about to place his ftatue in the temple. 

But is it not ftrange that Tiberius, who pleaded the caufe of Arche- 
laus, when Auguftus was again petitioned to depofe him, and of courfe 
knew that the chief reafon which induced the Jews to apply for his 
removal was of a religious nature—and alfo, that the foie object of 
the compact then entered into between the Jews and the Romans was 
to fecure their religious eftabliftiment—who held all the a£ts of 
Auguftus as facred—who was for nothing fo anxious as to let every 
thing remain as it was—who continued the indulgence granted to the 
Jews by Auguftus 16 years after his death—or, it may have been, till 
the Chriftian churches in Judea had reft—even when he knew that 
they were abufing it to the purpofe of trying their brethren of other 
countries, who believed in the divinity of Jefus Chrift, as blafphemers 
—and who continued, to the end of his reign, the daily oblation 
directed by Auguftus—is it not, fay we, ftrange that fucli an one 
fhould, without the leaft provocation, have, in the interim, taken 
from Ifrael the power of inflicting capital punifliments?—Or, in other 
words, is it not raoft unaccountably ftrange, that he, who knew and 
did all this, fhould not have permitted them to punifli any one with 
death for offences which Mofes faid expreflly fhould be punifhed with 
death, and, at the fame time fhould have permitted them to fend to 
ftrange cities for prefumed capital offenders—that is, for thofe who 
believed in one of whom Mofes and the prophets fpake, and who was 
greater than Mofes, for the purpofe of punifhing them with death ?— 
and, that he fhould not have permitted the former and have permitted 







249 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion. 

the latter at the very time when he was fo overcome with grief that 
his life was a burden to him ?—and, when he was fo afraid of his 
enemies, as to think it prudent to dehfl from attending the Senate, 

and even from entering Rome ?—If not when his mother, who was a 

■ 

friend of Jews and a promoter of the temple fervice, had, by inter¬ 
fering in the management of public matters, driven him from Romo? 

That the tradition, recorded in the Talmud of Jerufalem, appears, 
as it is tranflated, to be very queftio-nable—who will deny ?—No one 
lurely who knows what Philo fays, ad C. p. 785, F., and in the next 
fentence, p. 786, A.—In the former page he fays that Tiberius was 
very careful, till the death of Sejanus, to preferve the Jewifh hierarchy 
entire as it was at firft—and in the latter page he fays that the Tews 
were, till that time, more attached to him than any other people.— 
Now what can have been the caufe of their greater attachment 
to him, but the confideration of that beneficence which he had 
always extended to their whole nation on account of their religious 
tenets?—Does not Philo feem to fay fo immediately after, where he 
tells us of the circular letter which he fent to all his foreign ordained 
underlings —^uporovofjuvois vrrx^-/ois — charging them to behave kindly to 
the Jews in their refpeflive departments—to make no alteration in 
their cufloms, and to refpeft the Jews themfelves as peaceable, and 
their laws as conducing to peace. As now, Philo fays, that fucli was 
the concern of Tiberius for the l'afety of the Jews and for the prefer- 
vation of their law, after the death of Sejanus, that is, in the begin¬ 
ning of the 18th year of his reign, who can think that he deprived 
them of the power of putting any one to death any time before, and, 
efpecially, only the year before, and, it may have been, in the courfe 

E r 






250 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

of the fame year?—Would the Jews, in that cafe, inftead of being 
exafperated to madnefs at the unjuft and unprovoked privation, have 
continued to be, above others, attached to him ?—And, if fuch was 
his concern for them and for their law, fo foon after their expulfion, 
who can think that the Jews confidered him as being the caufe of 
their expulfton? 

Having now difcovered, by the evidence of the Evangelifts, Agrippa, 
Philo, and Jofephus, and even that of Tacitus, that Tiberius feems to 
have been a friend of the Jews, and on account of their religion, till 
the year 784 was pretty far advanced, or, till the beginning of the 
18th year of his reign;—let us now make it our bufinefs to inform 
ourfelves whether he behaved himfelf towards that people during the 
remaining four or five years of his reign as he did in the preceding 
part of it. 

We have juft feen that Philo, ad C. p. 786, A., fays, that Tibe¬ 
rius, immediately after the death of Sejanus, wrote to all his ordained 
minifters abroad, that they fhould behave kindly to the Jews under 
them, in confederation of their fober behaviour, and the peaceable fpirit 
of their law. And in his next work againft Flaccus, he leaves us to 
conclude that the governor behaved moft impartially towards thofe of 
Alexandria, from the expulfion of thofe of Rome by Sejanus, to the 
perfecution of thofe of Alexandria, in the next reign, by Flaccus.— 
And Jofephus, we perceive, A. xviii. 5, 6, 7, and in one or two other 
places, confirms this report of Philo. 

In the 7, he fays, that Agrippa, who had been brought up at 
Rome with Drufus, and had, at his death, been obliged to leave Italy, 
becaufe he could not appear in the prefence of Tiberius as ufual, re- 


25 1 

Tiberius ever foncl of Jews and of their religion . 

turned to Italy,* before the death of Pifo,f who died in the year 784, 
and, as Tacitus fays, vi. 10, in the latter end of the 18th year of 
Tiberius, or, in the beginning of the 19th. As foon as he arrived at 
Puteoii, he, fays Jofephus, A. xviii. 7, t., fent a letter to Tiberius, 
then at Caprece, to beg permiffion to wait on him—and, that Tibe¬ 
rius, without delay, fent him a moft benevolent anfwer; and, when 
he arrived at Capreae, received him in the moft affectionate manner. 
Now if Tiberius, in the year 784, deprived the Jews of the power of 
punifhing any one with death—that is, of the power of inflicting the 
capital penalties prefcribed by Mofes—and, had, in the courfe of that 
fame year, expelled the Jews from Rome, and treated the libertines fo 
much more barbarouflv than any other of the reft, and thofe who en- 
lifted worfe than thofe who refufed to enlift—if he, in that year, did 
all this, would Agrippa, who fainted away on hearing of the impious 
intention of his coufln Caius, and, who told that prince, that he would 
rather fuffer death than fee the temple polluted, have, in the year 
following, been fo ready to wait on Tiberius at Capreae—and, as 
it fhould feem, to accufe Herod of having been concerned in the con- 
fpiracy of Sejanus ?—Or, would Tiberius have been fo overjoyed to 
fee him, and fo ready to requeft him to remain at Capreae, and to 
undertake the care of his grandfon. 

* Josephus says, B. ii. 9, t., that the object of Agrippa’s visit to Rome, 
this time, was to accuse his uncle, the tetrarch, but of what, he does not 
there say; but as he says, A. xviii. 7, that he had just before quarrelled 
with his uncle—and, A. xviii. 8 , 13., that he afterwards went to Rome to ac¬ 
cuse him, to Caius, of having been concerned in the conspiracy of Sejanus; 
why should we not suspect that this is likely to have been his object now,— 
Tiberius, it however seems, paid no attention to it. 

+ A. xviii. 7, «, 


R r 2 




262 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of their religion . 

In the 5th chapter, /3., he fays, that Vitellius, on the petition of the 
Samaritans, fent Pilate to Rome, to anfvver for his conduct towards 
that people—or, rather, as he fays, a few lines after in the fame §— 
7 rpos a. yxrriyopotsv I a^xioi (>iScc%xvtx rov xvroypxropx — that, it may be, is—to 
the emperor for inflru&ions as to what the Jews might be permitted 
to accufe. 

In the fame chapter, he fays, that Vitellius (in the 21ft year of 
Tiberius*) went up to Jerufalem at the paflover, and then, by the 
order of Tiberius, no doubt, granted to the Jews two favors—viz— 
a remilhon of the tribute on fruit fold at Jerufalem—and, a permiffion 
to the priefts to have the cuftody of the high-priefts ftole and orna¬ 
ments, of which they had been deprived by Hyrcanus, A. xv. 11, 

In the next chapter, 6, he fays, that Aretas and Herod were at 
war with each other—that Aretas defeated the troops of Herod—that 
Herod complained of it to Tiberius—and, that Tiberius was very 
much offended at the news of it—and, laftly, that he, notwithfland- 
ing what Agrippa had faid of him, inflantly wrote to Vitellius to allift 
Herod. 

In the fame chapter, he fays, that Vitellius marched with his 
forces to join thofe of Herod; and that when he would have paffed 
through Judea, with his army, the rulers of the Jews went to meet 
him and to defire him not to think of doing it, becaufe the admiffion 
of Roman (landards into their country was confidered as illegal—that 
Vitellius immediately complied with their requeft, and ordered his 

* KypiTtircLS i/os HpwSa ra ftacrfotus yxryyopos Hpu^n ra rsrpxpyn cttpiy.Ofjf.svos 
s» Pufjcvi StfxtiToci vita TiCspin. Epitome xf° vwv > P* 268, Ann. Tib. K. (20) 
Galba and Sjlla Coss. 

N. B, In the Chron. Can. this is placed in the K. A. of Tib. p. 189 . 



253 


Tiberius ever fond of Jews and of llieir religion. 

troops to take another route, while lie and Herod went up to Jeru- 
falem to facrifice—there he was honorably received, and there he re” 
mained three days, and then was informed that Tiberius was dead. 

Again, xix. 5, /3., he relates how Claudius, in the beginning of his 
reign, publifhed an edi& in favor of the Jews of Alexandria, in which 
he notices the favors conferred on them by Augultus, and the perfe¬ 
ction of them under Caius ; but of their having been forbidden, by 
Tiberius, to punifh any one with death, for having tranfgrefled the 
law of Mofes, or of their having been otherwife difturbed by him, he 
fays not a w T ord. 

Laftly—in his work againft Apion, 1 . ii. §. 5, he fays, that the care 
of the Nile, &c. which had been, by the Ptolemies, entrufted to the 
Jews, had been continued to them by all the emperors. 






CHAPTER XV. 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Home, 

To any one who has read the chapter of this work immediately 
preceding, or, the epiftle which Agrippa fent to Cams to deprecate 
the ere&ion of his ftatue in the temple, it mull feem very ftrange that 
any writer ftiould have faid that the Jews were, at any time, in the 
reign of Tiberius, for any reafon, expelled from Rome. And to any 
one who has read what Strabo has faid, xvi. 526, of the intimacy 
of Herod with Antony and Auguftus, and what Jofephus has faid, 
A. xvi. 2, of his intimacy with Agrippa, and what Jofephus has alfo 
faid, A. xvii. 15, of the petition of the Jews to be releafed from their 
allegiance to the family of Herod, and to be taken under the imme¬ 
diate dominion of the Romans, (provided only that all the powers of 
their hierarchy might remain as they were)—to any one who has read 
this, and who confiders that all the powers of their hierarchy were 
religioufly fupported by Auguftus, as long as he lived, not only in 
Judea, but in every other country, and even in Rome itfelf, it mull 
feem unaccountably ftrange that any one ftiould have faid that the 
Jews of Rome were, at any time, in the reign of Tiberius, expelled 










255 


libcrius did not expel the Jeves from Rome. 

from that city, and from that city only, for exercifing thofe very rites 
which his predecefTor had folemnly agreed they fhould always exercife 
unmolefted at Rome, as well as at any other place, efpecially as Dion 
%s, 57 > P- 607, C., that Tiberius, after his acceflion, not only fvvore 
himfelf to obferve all the a<frs of Augufrus, but that he compelled 
others to do fo too. And, again, to any one who recolle&s what the 
rulers of the Jews faid, in the year 781, to Pilate—or, how intimate 
Livia is faid to have been with Salome, till that year—and how inti¬ 
mate Antonia is faid to have been with Berenice, it mull feem frill 
more frrange that any one fhould have faid that they were expelled 
before that year. And, lafrly, to any one who knows how reverently 
Strabo fpeaks of their religion, xvi. 523, what can be more afronifh- 
ing than to hear that they were expelled, at any time, for holding 
fuperftitious opinions and pra&ifing profane rites ? 

The expulfion of the Jews from Rome, in the reign of Tiberius, is 
however noticed by four early writers—viz—by two Jewifh and by 
two Roman: but though thofe four writers are agreed as to the fa£l 
of their expulfion, in that reign, yet as to moft other points they all, 
more or lefs, difagree—and, as to fome of the more important ones, 
not a little, the Jewifh as well as the Roman. Scarce two of them 
agree as to the caufe of their expulfion—the year when it happened— 
the perfon by whom they were expelled—or, the confequence, the 
period for which they were expelled. And, what is frill more remark¬ 
able, they all, we perceive, feemingly, carefully avoid to tell us that 
thofe Jews, who acknowledged their belief that Jefus was the Chrifr, 
were alfo expelled, notwithfranding they mufr, by the account of two 
of thofe writers, have, at that time, been very numerous, and had, 
by the account of one of them—viz—Tacitus, been, above other Jews, 
kept in awe at Rome, and had, by that of three early Chrifrian writers, 
been alfo expelled in the fame reign. 






256 


s, 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

Let us next proceed to examine each of the accounts which thofe 
four writers have given of this matter.—And, firft, let us attend to 
what Tacitus fays of it. 









Tacitus informs us, A. ii. 85, that in the year 772, T. 5 or 6, the 
Jewifh or Egyptian rites, for fome reafon which he does not affign, 
excited the attention of, not Tiberius, but the Senate—and, that a 
decree was then made, by the Senate, that thofe who pra&ifed Jewifh 
or Egyptian rites fhould no longer remain at Rome, or in Italy—that 
is, unlefs they would, by a fixed day, relinquifh their fuperflitious 
cuftoms. He moreover informs us that the Senate, not content with 
this enormous ftretch of power, ordered (and without aligning any 
reafon for it) 4,000 of fuch libertine youths as had been infefled with 
that fuperftition to Sardinia (a province, at that time, as Strabo* and 
Dionf fay, under their jurifdidlion)—not merely as a place of con¬ 
finement, but to fupprefs the pirates, or, it may have been to perifh.. 
His own words are—Aflum et de facris asgyptiis judaicifque pellen- 
dis: fadtaque patrum confultum, ut quatuor millia libertini generis, 
ea fujierjiitione infefta, queis idonea aetas, in infulam Sardiniam vehe- 
rentur, coercendis illic latrociniis, et fi ob gravitatem coeli interiflent, 
vile damnum: ceteri cederent Italia, nifi certam ante diem /irofancs 
ritus exuilTent. 


And did the Senate indeed prefume, contrary to their ufual practice, 
to take, in the year 772, cognizance of the religions of other Rates, 
and even of a people who had, as Jofephus fays,]; been allied to the 
Romans more than a century and a half, as well as that of a con¬ 
quered people, whole religion was more ancient than their own, if not 
old enough to have been the parent of it?—Were not the religions of 
the conquered nations always tolerated ?—Had not that of the Jews 

* 1. xvii, p, 5T8. t 1. 53 , p. 503, D. + A. xii. 10, 


1 


257 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

been not only tolerated, but even refpe&ed by each of the Csefars ?— 
And had not that of the Egyptians been introduced, by the Triumvirs, 
into Rome ?*—If they did prefume to do fo, do they not appear to 
have forgotten the oath which they had, as Dion, we have juft feen, 
lays, taken a year or two before, to obferve all the a<fts of Auguftus ? 
And do they not, in that cafe, appear, even by the account of Tacitus 
himfelf, A. iii. 60, to have ufurped a power which did not then belong 
to them, and which, he fays, Tiberius did not concede to them before 
the year 775?—Tiberius, he fays, then, by way of confolidating his 
power, afforded the Senate a fhadow of their ancient rights, and they, 
he fays, in purfuance of their revived privilege, proceeded to enquire 
into the abufes of the foreign afyla, and, by way of doing it effeft- 
ually, proceeded to examine the pretentions of the Deities worfhipped 
by their allies. If now Tiberius did not concede the ancient privilege 
of enquiring into the religious affairs of the provinces till the year 
775, why lhould we fuppofe that the Senate, in the year 772, pre¬ 
fumed to enquire into the religious concerns of foreign ftates, and, 
efpecially of thofe of the Jews and Egyptians only?—What provoca¬ 
tion could thofe two ftates have given them ?—And why fhould they 
have pronounced their religions to have been indifcriminately fuper- 
ftitious?—If the religion of the Jews was fo very fuperftitious, why 
did Cyrus behave fo very kindly towards them, and particularly to¬ 
wards thofe in captivity?—And why did Alexander, in his way to the 
eaft, behave fo refpe&fully to their priefts, and afterwards treat thofe 
I11 Egypt as Macedonians, efpecially thofe who inhabited his new- 
founded city Alexandria?—-Why did Ptolemy Philadelphus, a few 

* rov fxsv av evtzvrov (711) rxvroc re vtus tTroi'ntrxy, axi nuv r« re Itfxw&t 
tv I (not t'\t<Trtyo’xvTo, Dion, 1 . 47, p. A. 


258 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

years after, defire to have a tranfiation of the laws which they ufed, 
and why did he offer for it the redemption of 120,000 Jewifh captives, 
&c. &c. ?—Why did Seleucus Nicator, after the example of Alexander, 
grant to them the fame indulgences, as he did to the Macedonians, iu 
all the new-built cities of Afia and Syria, and efpecially at Antioch? 
Why did Antioch us the Great write to all his pnefetts fpecifying what 
favors he willed them to beftow on the Jews, for their fervices?—All 
this Tacitus appears, by what he fays, Hift. iv. 8, to have overlooked, 
for he there fays—while the Aflyrians, the Medes, and Perfians pof* 
feiled the ead, the Jews were the mod contemptible fiaves—Dum 
Afiyrios penes Medofque et Perfas Oriens fuit, defpe&iffima pars fer- 
vientium—and immediately after he adds—under the Macedonians, 
Antiochus would have civilifed that mod favage people and removed 
their fujierjiition , but was prevented by the breaking out of the Parthian 
war—podquam Macedones praepotuere, rex Antiochus* demere fujier - 
Jiitioncm , et mores Graecorum dare adnixus, quo minus teterrimam 
gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus ed. But though 
Tacitus does not feern to have been aware of the great favors which 
Cyrus, Alexander, and his fucceflors conferred on the Jews, yet how 
could he have contrived to overlook what two of the fird and two of 
the fecond Triumvirate did for them, efpecially what Pompey did, im¬ 
mediately after the reduction of Jerufalem?—Cicero, he ought to 
have known, fays of that conquerorf that he took nothing from the 
temple, though Tacitus himfelf fays, Hid. v. 8, it contained an im- 
menfe treafure.—Cn. Pompeius, captis Hierofolymis, ex illo fano nihil 
attigit. Jofephus indeed informs us, A. xiv. 4, that it, at the time, 

* How differently does Josephus, A. xii. 3, and xiii. 8, 0., speak of the 
conduct of two other princes of this line towards the Jews. 


t Pro Flacco. 




259 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

contained, befides the facred veflels, two tlioufand talents. And 
Agrippa, and, after him, Vefpafian and Titus, he ought to have 
known, though importuned by the adverfaries of the Jews to with¬ 
hold from thofe of Aha and Syria their ancient privileges, refufed to 
comply. Now who that confiders all the evidence in favor of the re¬ 
ligion of the Jews can help being aftonithed at hearing Tacitus fo con¬ 
fidently aflTert that it was fo intolerably fuperftitious as to make the 
Senate think it neceflary to order all the Jews to leave Rome?—In 
what did their exceflive fuperftition confift ?—Seneca, we find, fays, 
Ep. 108, p. 635, that when the facred rites of the provinces were, in 
the reign of Tiberius, and in his own youthful days, fcrutinized, one 
of the arguments of fuperftition was, the abftinence from certain meats 
—and that he himfelf, for a year after, conformed to that fuperftitious 
pra&ice, and found himfelf the better for it. Strabo fays, xvi. p. 524, 
that the fucceftors of Mofes continued, for a great length of time, to 
follow his dire&ions, in truth worfhipping God and doing what was 

right tiiKottoirpacyovres v.xt 9 bo<ts^bis xXy) 9 ms ovtzs .—--and that, in pioccis of 

time, fuperftitious perfons, who recommended abftinence from certain 
forts of animal food, found means to introduce that praclice generally 
among them, which, fays he, is followed at the prefent time —City 7 7 £p 
vDv b9os £ f<v etvTM xTrtxe<j9cct.— Now if the fuperftition of the jews and of 
the people infe&ed with it confifted chiefly in abftaining from certain 
forts of meats, and even Seneca thought it not amifs to conform to 
their pra&ice, why thould the Senate have prefumed, for that reafon 
chiefly, to expel them from Italy, ought they not to have expelled 
Seneca too ?—Efpecially, as, we find, he fays, that he continued to 
follow the praftice a year after the Senate took the liberty of prying 
into the facred riteS of foreigners? 


S s 2 














26 0 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

But were the religions of the Jews and Egyptians, indeed, fo very 
like ?—Does not Tacitus himfelf fay, Hift. v. 3, that Bocchoris, the 
king of Egypt, expelled the Jews from that country, as being a fet of 
wretches whom the Gods hated—ut invifum deis—and does he not 
fay again, chapter 4, that Mofes, after they had been expelled from 
thence, enjoined them, by way of fecuring to himfelf their allegiance, 
to adopt rites which he had devifed, and, which were not like thofe 
pra&ifed by any other people—Mofes quo fibi in pofterum gentem 
firmaret; novos ritus, contrariofque ceteris mortalibus indidit.—And, 
does he not, immediately after, proceed to inform us that the Jew r s 
not only pra&ifed rites totally different from all thofe pra&ifed by the 
Romans, but that they facrificed fome of thofe very animals which the 
Egyptians adored? —Profana illic omnia, quae apud nos facra: rurfum 
concefla apud illos, quae nobis incefta. Effigies animalis, quo mon- 
flrante errorem fitimque depulerant, penetrali facravere: caefo ariete 
velut in contumeliam Hammonis. Bos quoque immolatur, quem 
yTgyptii colunt.—And does he not again, in the next chapter, endea¬ 
vour to convince us that the religious notions and practices of the fews 
were totally different from thofe of the Egyptians ? —iEgyptii pleraque 
animalia effigiefque compofitas venerantur. Judaei mente fola, unum- 
gue numen intelligunt: Profanos, qui deum imagines, mortalibus 
mateiiis, in lpeciem hominum effingunt: Summum illud et aeternum, 
neque mutabile, neque interiturum. Igitur nulla fimulachra urbibus 
fuis, nedum templis funt.*—All this Tacitus himfelf fays in the v. 
book of his hiftory—why then fhould we be expe&ed to believe what 
he fays in the ii. book of his annals of the identity of the jewifh and 
egyptian fuperflition ?—And as to what he fays of Mofes, how differ¬ 
ent is it from what Diodorus and Strabo, who each lived in Egypt, 

* And jet he had, but just before, told us—Effigies animalis, quo mon* 
strante errorem sitimque depulerant, penetrali sacravcre.—See chapter 9. 



261 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

fay of him ?—Diodorus, it feems, by his own report i. book, obtained 
this account of him from the Egyptian priefts—viz—that he was the 
moll ancient and therefore the firft lawgiver—^ E Ta yap r>j> vxXxtxv th 

xxt' Aiywrov (3m xxrx^yaiy ri jv ixv9oXoy8(xzrr,y yzvzaGai vni Q)zuv xxi ypvuv, vzia-xt 
tya.cn zyypx(pois vo/xo/y Trpuiroy xpypQxi rx r n'ky9y xxi (3my Mvcrzy, xvtyx xxi ry 4 /y %*i 
u,zyxv, xxi rw /3/w i*xvu>rarov /xv y[xovzo[A.zyov. — And, a little after, Diodorus, 
enumerating ancient lawgivers, places Mofes before all of them, then 
four egyptian lawgivers, and Bocchoris as the fourth. And of Mofes, 
he fays, that he was, by the Jews, entitled a God, both becaufe they 
expeCted that his wonderful and divine mind would benefit pofterity— 
and, becaufe people are apt to look up, with admiration, to the fuper- 
eminence and energy of thofe who could devife laws —vxpx fxev rots 

la oxiois MZtjyv rov xxXzvpizvov Qzov, sirs 9xv(j.xs m yv xxi 9zixv oA us zvyotav tiyxi xpivov • 
rts ryy ixeXhtsrxv utpzXyrziv av9pu7ruv nXyOos, sirs \xai] rrpos ryy wzpo^yy xxi dvvx* 
puy ruv ivpziy Xtyo[Atvojy ray ys/xay xTro^Xz-^xyrx rov o%\ov t (j.xWoy waxusaQai 
<$ix\a£ovros .; rzrxprov ch tyxei yo^o9zri ?y yzyyya9xi B oxyopiy rov (3x<ri\ex‘.-— 

By this extract, then we find, that Diodorus contradicts Tacitus both 
with regard to the time when the Jews left Egypt, and, with regard 
to the legiflation of Mofes. And, we alfo find, that Strabo, who alfo 
redded in Egypt a long while, contradicts him with regard to the 
reafon which induced Mofes to depart from Egypt and with regard to 
his character as a legiflator, for he, we find, fays, l. xvi. p. 523, that 
he was an egyptian prieft, and, that he, being difgufted at the fuper- 
flitious ways of the country, left it, and, with him, many who feared 

the deity —Mucrys yxp ns ruv A lyvirnuy tzpzuv zyuy rt pezpos rys xx\ 8 (xzvys 
Xpypxs, xTsypzv zxhaz zv 9 zvoz Ivtrytpxyxs rx xx 9 z?urx, xxi crvvz^ypxy xvru -ttoAAo; 

ro Otto.— Strabo having thought it neceffary to introduce his 
account of the Jews and Judea with this preliminary account of 
Mofes, proceeds then to relate what that lawgiver himfelf faid—viz— 
“ He, fays Strabo, affirmed and taught that the Egyptians, who aflimi- 









262 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

“ lated the Deity to wild beads and cattle,* had not proper notions of 
“ him—that the Libyans had not—that the Greeks too erred by re- 
“ prefenting him in a human form—that the Deity was that one being 
“ which contains all the race of man, and the world, or, as we fay, 
“ the heavens and the earth and all nature, whofe image no wife 
“ perfon would undertake to exhibit by any obje£l of fenfe.—What 
“ rational being would think of reprefenting fuch a being by any ob- 
“ je£t that he fees?—All animal reprefentations of him being there- 
“ fore irrational, they that would confecrate any acceptable inclofure 
“ or fane to him would not think of giving it any particular form— 
iC that he fignifies his approbation of the upright by good dreams for 
“ themfelves and for others—that fuch as live foberly and uprightly 
“ may expert from him fome compenfation and fign of his ap- 
“ probation — that others may not.” —E$h yxp turns xxi e^i^xctxev, ur Hx 

cpQoJS tppovucriv ot Aiyvitnoi Qypiois eixx^ovtss, (3o'Txy)(xx<ti to Qeiov tr^’ oi A i£ves iSX 

tv oi oLvQpuTroiAoptyus tvtthvtes, x. t, a.— 3 y preaching fuch 

do&rine he, continues Strabo, prevailed on not a few ivell-dif[iofcd /icr- 
fons to follow him to Jerufalem, where the temple now dands. Here 
he promifed them the prote&ion of that Deity, and fuch a form of 
worfhip as would be attended neither with expendve ceremonies, nor 
with extravagant raptures, nor with unfeemly a&ions. All this, fays 
Strabo, happened according to promife, which when all the furround¬ 
ing races perceived, they placed themfelves under his government, 
which, by thofe aceffions, was rendered refpeflable. His fuccedors, 
proceeds Strabo, continued to purfue the fame courfe, doing wliat was 
right, and worfhipping the Deity in truth— dtxxioirpxyovrts, xxi Aeos-eSW 
ut xXvjQojs ovtes .—Notwithdanding Strabo here fays that the fuccedors 
of Mofes continued to follow his deps, yet it is rather remarkable that 
he, in the courfe of the fame page, alfo fays that they afterwards did 

* See p. 559. 


263 


Tiberiuf did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

not follow his deps—and, that fome of the feparatids laid wade both 
Judea and the neighbouring country —Tomros ^ rk w kxi o Muons, kxi o< 

oix^z^xiADioi t/iiivov rxs y.Ev xpyxs XxCovtes h QxvXxs tx.rpovTrofjt.tvoi cf ati to yjiipov 
oi [jutv yxp a t^if«/x£vo< rnv y^upxv vkxkuv, kxi xvrnv kxi mv ytirviuoxv. p. 5^4* 

The evidence of Diodorus and Strabo, as to the time when the Jews 
left Egypt, and the religious tenets of Mofes, are then, we find, con¬ 
tradictory of that given by Tacitus on the fame points. What reafon 
then have we to acquiefce in what he fays of the fuperdition of the 
Jews?—If they were, at any time, fuppofed to have adopted fuper- 
ftitious notions, why fhouU we not conclude, from what Strabo fays 
immediately after, that their fuperdition confided not, as Strabo fays, 
in circumcijion and excifton , but in abdaining from certain forts of 
animal food ?—A pra&iee which, one fhould have thought, could 
not have given offence to any one, ,and which Seneca, we find, fays, 
was beneficial to him. And as to the fuperdition of the Egyptians he 
fays not awvord, on the contrary, he fays enough to convince us that 
the religious ceremonies of the Egyptians were not then thought to be 
at all fuperditious. In the fird book, p. 16, (which book, it may not 
be amifs to obferve, he is thought to have written before the end of 
the year 772, and fevcral years after Tiberius fucceeded Augudus,) 
he tells us that the Egyptian prieds were, by thofe who preceded him , 
held in the highed edimation —ms O' tepsxs tuv Aiyuirruv kxi XxX^xms kxi 

y.xyus } ootpix t ivi oixtyzpovTcS ruv xXXuv, n y*[xovixs kxi Tigris rvyy^xvsiv nsxpx 

TOIS Ttpo V(/.WV UTU Of KXI TUV QsuV EVX EKXfGV TUV yjp'n<Jl[AUV TWOS EVpETOV ySVO{J.cVO» 

tI’ lAxofai. —And again, in the xii, he tells us, fird at p. 541, that they 
were, on account of their knowledge of philofophy and adronomy, 
converfant with their kings -— 0 i /f pels KXI QlXoCTOtylXV nOKtSV KXI XipGVO[JUXV, 
op/aX'i itxi re tuv fixoifauv noxv— ladly, he, at p. 554 > tells us that Plato 
and Eudoxus were faid to have fpent 13 years in Egypt with the 
prieds, and, that the Grecians derived their knowledge of adronomy 








261 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Borne. 

from the Egyptians. In fhort—how could the fuperflition of thofe 
two nations have been the fame, when as Tacitus himfelf fays, Hid. 
v. 5, they had contrary notions about heavenly things—cadedium 
contra r 

Befides—Tacitus and Juvenal, we find, reprefent the conduct of 
thofe two nations, towards their own countrymen, to have been 
totally different.—Tacitus fays, Hid. v. 5, of the Jews—Necare quen- 
quam ex agnatis, nefas:—Juvenal tells us, xv. 33, that the antipathy 
that exided between two neighbouring egyptian clans about religion, 
was fo great that they not only killed each other, but even devoured 
the carcafes of the dain : 

Inter finitimos vetus atque antiqua fimultas 
Immortale odium, et nunquam fanabile vulnus 
Ardet adhuc Ombos et Tentyra. Summus utrinque 
Inde furor vulgo, quod Numina vicinorum 
Odit uterque locus; cum folos credat habendos 
Ede Deos, quos ipfe colit, &c. 

Philo, befides telling us how very fupe-rior the religion of the Jews 
was to thofe of all other people, alfo tells us, de vita M. p. 508, C. D., 
how little regard all the red of the world had for the religious inditu- 

tions of each other — TUV XXTX TY)V EAA<%C/je XXI (3xp£xpOV , U^ I'TTOS E17ZBIV, b^S(J.IX 
VroXlS tfl, V) TX ITtpxS yopupLX TipiX, [AoXlS XXI TUV XVTr)S ll^Xtl VnpityZTXI, TTpoS 
TXS TUV XKipUV XXI TUV irpxy^XTUV [AtQxpiJLofylAtvri TpOTTXi . A Qevxioi x. t. A.-— 

He alfo tells us, in FI., how the Alexandrians, within a few months 
only after the death of Tiberius, petitioned Flaccus for leave to per- 
fecute the Jews of that city for their religion. And, ladly, Jofephus. 
in his difpute with Apion, ii, §. 6, p. 1367, reprefents that adverfary 
of the Jews as attempting to prove that the Jews of Alexandria could 
not be free of that city, as the natives were, becaufe they did not worjhifi 




265 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

the fame God. —Sed fuper hoc: quomodo ergo, inquit, (i funt cives, 
eofdem Deos, quos Alexandrini non colunt ? Cui refpondeo: Quo¬ 
modo etiam, cum vos litis ^Egyptii, inter alterutros praelio magno et 
line faedere de rcligione contenditis ?—Now as fo many writers, three 
of whom lived in Egypt, atteft the difcrepancy between the jewilh 
religion and every one of the egyptian, and of the egyptian between 
each other, why Ihould Tacitus have aflumed it as granted that all 
the religions of the Egyptians were the fame, and precifely like that 
of the Jews ? 

But, after all, had the religions of thofe two people been precifely 
the fame, how will it be made to appear that their religion was more 
iuperftitious than that of the Romans?—Had not the Romans derived 
the worfhip of fome if not of molt of their Deities from the Egyptians? 
At leaft does not Strabo fay, xvii, that fome of the Egyptians were 
worfhippers of Jupiter, fome of Apollo, others of Venus, and others 
again of Pallas, &c. ?—And does not Dion fay, 1. 48, p. 336, that 
the Triumvirs, in the year 711, that is, before Egypt was made a 
Roman province, ere£ted a temple to Serapis and Ills ?—And as to the 
4,000 young men, citizens, who, he fays, were, for their fuperftition, 
by the Senate, fent, as foldiers, to Sardinia, (admitting that Sardinia 
then belonged to them) what right had they to punilli them fo much 
more feverely for their fuppofed fuperftition ?—Whether they were 
previoufty inlifted or not, what right had they to order them any 
where, efpecially as they belonged to provinces confeftedly under the 
control of the emperor?—Tacitus tells us that they were fent to Sar¬ 
dinia to prevent piracy—coercendis illic latrociniis ;—but do not 
Paterculus and Suetonius inform us that Tiberius was himfelf very 
indultrious to prevent piracy ? —Paterculus fays, ii, 126, that Tiberius 


Tt 


f 



266 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

had, before the 16th year of his reign, entirely fupprefled piracy— 
pax augufta per omnes terrarum orbis. angulos a latrociniorum metu 
fervat immunes.—Suetonius fays in the beginning of the chapter next 
after that in which he fpeaks of the expulfion of the Jews, &c. that 
Tiberius put an entire flop to the depredations of pirates—Imprimis 
tuendce pacis a grafiaturis ac latrociniis feditionumque licentia curam 
habuit. 

Laftly—Tacitus fays, that all the reft were ordered—that is, in the 
year 772, to leave Italy, unlefs they would, by a fixed day, relinquifh 
their profane rites. But if all this took place in the year 772, it muft 
have happened before the death of Drufus, who, we find, by Jofe- 
phus, was ever fond of the company of Agrippa. How then is it that 
Agrippa had no intereft at court, to prevent this general expulfion of 
his countrymen?—How is it that he was permitted to remain at Rome 
till the death of Drufus ?—Did he too renounce his religion ?—How 
is it to be accounted for that Tiberius, at the requeft of the Jews, re¬ 
buked Pilate fo feverely for having prefumed to introduce the Roman 
ftandards into Jerufalem?—How happened it that Paulina, the wife 
of Saturrtinus was, as Jofephus fays, in the year 783, a votary of Ifis 
—*-and that, that Goddefs had, in that year, a temple at Rome?—How 
was it that Fulvia too was permitted to beaome a [irofelyte ?■—How 
was it that thofe four jewith vagabonds, mentioned by Jofephus, 
found admiflion at Rome ?—And, laftly, how is it that Luke tells us 
that there were at Jerufalem, in the year 781, “ ftrangers of Rome, 
Jews, as well as Profelytes ?’* 

Befides—how is it that no other roman or jewifh writer has men¬ 
tioned this expulfion?—Even Philo and Jofephus appear not to have 
been aware of this expulfion of their countrymen. They each appear 
to deny it. Philo fays, leg. 785, F.. that the Jews were, even at Rome, 





267 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

as quiet all through the reign of Tiberius as they had been under that 
of their benefactor Auguftus, excepting only when Sejanus obtained 
leave to difturb their repofe to prevent their taking up arms in aid of 
Tiberius. Jofephus not only fays that even Fulvia, on whofe account 
the Jews were expelled from Rome, juft before the death of Sejanus, 
was, before fhe was deceived by the jewifh outcafts, a profelyte, but 
that lhe thought it no new thing to be expeCted to give fomething to¬ 
wards the fupport of the temple. 

On re-conftdering all that Tacitus fays of this matter why fhould 
we not conclude that he appears to have been quite ignorant of the 
jewifti religion, if not of the egyptian too—-and, that he appears to 
have been almoft as ignorant of the affairs of his own country, by 
faying that the Senate (who, he himfelf fays, often afked and followed 
the advice of Tiberius on extraordinary matters,) took the liberty of 
prying into the religious concerns of other countries, and efpecially of 
the Jews, which he ought to have known were fecured by compar¬ 
and, of fending thofe 4,000 libertines (who, as being Jews and 
Egyptians, muft have been fubjeCt to the emperor,) to Sardinia, as 
foldiers. And, on comparing what he here fays, with what he fays, 
iii. 60, why fhould we not conclude that he appears to have antidated 
this event not a little, if not that he appears to have contradicted 
himfelf? 

Let us now attend to what Suetonius fays of this event: 

Suetonius fays, c. 36, that Tiberius, notwithftanding he was, as we 
have feen in the laft CHAP., ever fond of Jews and of their religion, 
notwithftanding he, as Strabo fays, vi. p. 199, followed all the rules 
preferibed by Auguftus, notwithftanding he, as Dion fays, 1 , 5S, 


Tt 2 




268 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

p. 607, C., fwore to obferve all the a£ts of Auguftus, (who, as Sue¬ 
tonius himfelf acknowledges, ii. 93, had the moft profound reverence 
for all ancient religious inflitutions,) and compelled the Senate to do 
fo too, and, notwithftanding he, as Suetonius himfelf acknowledges, 
iii. 41, 69, cared nothing about the republic, or about religion, and 
the Gods—notwithftanding all this evidence to the contrary, Sueto¬ 
nius, we find, tells us that Tiberius forbad the continuance of jewifh 
or egyptian rites at Rome—that he compelled all who were addicted 
to that fu[ierJlition to burn every veft and utenfil neceflary for the per¬ 
formance of its rites—that he difperfed the jcwijh youth all over the 
unhealthy provinces—that is, furely, the imperial provinces, and there¬ 
fore not Sardinia, unlefs he had then exchanged fome other for it— 
that he did it per fpeciem facramenti— that is, we are told,* as foldiers 
—and, that he ordered ail the reft of the fame nation , or, the like 
feftaries to leave the city —and, that he threatened them with perpe¬ 
tual fervitude f if they would not obey.—His own words are—Exter- 
nas cseremonias, aegyptios judaicofque ritus compefcuit: coa£tis qui 
fuperftitione ea tenebantur, religiofas veftes cum inftrumento omni 
comburere. Judaorum juventutem, per fpeciem facramenti, in pro¬ 
vinces gravioris caeli diftribuit: reliquos ejufdem gentis, vei fimilia 
fe&antes, urbe fubmovit, fub paena perpetuae fervitutis, nil! obtempe- 
raflent.—All this Suetonius fays Tiberius did, and pretty clearly, after 
the fpring of the year 781—for then the rulers of the Jews faid to 
Pilate “ We have no kingbmt Caefar,”—and then they pofiefled the 
privilege of demanding the releafe of any ftate delinquent—and, after 
Midfummer in that year, for a little before, there were, fays Luke, 
at Jerufalem, devout ftrangers of Rome, Jews, and Profelytes—and, 

* Per speciem honoris, iii. 65.—Under a pretence of conferring honor on 
Sejanus. 

% 

+ Does not this seem to imply that these Jews of Rome were libertines. 


1 




269 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

after the beginning of 782, for then there were at Jerufalem jewiih 
libertines, fays the fame writer—and probably when the year 783 was 
pretty far advanced, for in that year they ftill poflefled the privilege 
of fending to flrange cities for tranfgreflors of the law, and, as the 
Talmud of Jerufalem fays, the power of putting any one to death— 
that is, feemingly, the year after the facred rites of foreign nations 
were fcrutinized, for then Seneca fays, that he, in compliance with 
the requeft of his father, ceafed to follow the fufierjlition of fome of 
them, in abftaining from the food of certain animals. 

Let us next hear what Jofephus fays of the expulfion of his coun¬ 
trymen from Rome: 

v 

Jofephus, after having given us an account, A. xviii. 4, y., of the 
works &c. of our Lord, proceeds, in the next §. to fay how another 
difajler <xXXo rt Ofiyov* about the fame time——Kas/ vno r« avrtss xpovas—- 
befell the Jews. But though he raifes our expectation in this unufual 
manner, he does not immediately proceed to gratify it. Before I, 
fays he, proceed to give an account of this other difafter which, at 
this time, befell the Jews, I requeft your attention to an irrelevant 
anecdote concerning Ifis, the Goddefs of the Egyptians, her temple at 
Rome, and her priefts.f And having indulged himfelf with this digref- 
fion, in the end of that §. he fays again— hxtcc ms xfovus mms.— He 
then proceeds, in §. to relate the expulfion of the Jews. 

Fulvia, fays he, the wife of Saturninus, a Patrician, and one of the 
friends of Tiberius, had embraced the jewifh religion. After fhe had 
become a profelyte to it, (he placed herfelf under the inftruCtion of a 

* Those who contend that Josephus did not record the previous account of 
our Lord, are desired to tell us what he means by another disaster. 

+ By this it appears that the Egyptians had, at that time, a temple, &c. at 
Rome—and, that they were not expelled. 






270 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

certain Jew, who, for fear of the punifhment which he deferved for 
tfanfgrefling the law, and for his total depravity, had fled from his 
country; but who, notwithftanding his tranfgrefTion of the law, pre¬ 
tended to be an interpreter of it. This noble lady, fays he, not fatis- 
fled with the inftru&ions which fhe received from this wicked would 
be doctor, attended likewife thofe of three or four other vagabonds, 
in all things as bad as her firft teacher. By thofe four outcafts fhe was 
perfuaded to fend coftly prefents to Jerufalem, which they took care 
to apply to their own ufe. Saturninus, (and not the Jews of Rome,) 
fays Jofephus, complained of this fraud, not to any magiftrate, but t<y 
Tiberius, then at Capreae, immerfed in indolence and vice, and totally 
indifferent about the republic, or religion, and the Gods. Tiberius, 
our hiftorian proceeds to fay, on hearing of this fraud, inftead of 
punifhing thofe four impoflors, ordered every thing jewifh— %x* r» 
l^atKov *—that is, we fuppofe, the Jews, and, at leaft, their profelytes, 
if not their believing countrymen, to be driven from Rome. The con- 
fuls,f fubjoins he, at the time making a levy,* took 4,000 of them 
and fent them not, as Suetonius fays, into the unhealthy provinces, 

* <pspsi £e xxi mu tbs aAAy s xvOpu/lfBS oaoi rx vopiifjix xvru/v, xxtvsp xkXasQnis 
cvref, Dion, I. 37, p. 37, B. 

xB^ojpi^xrxt xn to tujv Xonruv xvOpcj'rrwv ts te tx x\\x rx ’nspi r*iv <$ixirw itxv 6' 
a;r e ‘TTttv, xxi (AxhiaQ' on tuv ^aev aAA uv Qswv ttStvx npiaaty svx $$ nvx i<rj(vpws 

< 7 *£W/. B. C. 

+ This event, vre shall see presently, he appears to have placed in the year 
783, when M. Vinucius Quartinus and C. Cassius Longinus were consuls. 

■» 

X Paterculus says, ii, 130, that Tiberius made this levy, and, that he made 
it without causing the least disturbance—Quanta cum quiete hominura, rein 
perpetui pra?cipuique timoris, supplementum, sine trepidatioue dilectus, pro¬ 
vide ? 


271 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

bat to Sardinia, and punifhed moil of the reft for refuting, in obe¬ 
dience to Mofes, toenlift.* All thefe were, for the one offence of 
thofe four impoftors, fo punifhed and expelled from Rome. 

Now as this jewilh impoftor found it neceflary to leave Judea on 
account of his having tranfgrefled the law of Mofes, why fhould we 
not fuppofe that he had done fomething to deferve death?—For what 
other crime thould he have thought it neceflary to leave his native 
country ?—If then this jewifh tranfgreffor had been obliged to leave 
Judea to avoid a capital punifhment, and foon after the crucifixion of 
Jefus, does it not feem to imply that Ifrael had ftili the power of in- 
flifting capital punifhments ?—But whether he had or had not done 
fomething worthy of death, if he fled for having tranfgrefled the law 
of Mofes, why, if the Jews had then the privilege of fending to ftrange 
cities for tranfgreflors of the law, did they not fend to Rome to appre¬ 
hend him?—Efpecially if, as Jofephus fays, he had aggravated his 
former tranfgreflions by embezzling the voluntary oblations of this 
honorable profelyte to the fupport of the fervice of the temple ?— 
For, in that cafe, he muft have been guilty of a breach of thofe fix 
edifls publifhed by Auguftus, Agrippa, &c. and recited by Jofephus, 
A. xvi. 6, 13 . y. 5 . f. f. which edi&s, Tiberius, who, as Dion fays, 
I. 57, p. 607, C., had fworn to obferve all the a£ts of Auguftus, and 
had compelled the Senate to do fo too, muft be fuppofed to have ftili 
enforced. And if the privilege of fending to ftrange cities for tranf- 
greflors of the law of Mofes was then alfo taken from them, why did 
they not complain of his having afted in defiance of thofe edicts ? 
—Tiberius, furely, would have caufed them to be enforced.—But 
inftead of telling us that the Jews took any ftep to punifh thofe vile 
tranfgreflors of their law, he would have us to believe that Satur- 

* Does not this too seem to imply that those Jews were libertines? 







272 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews front Rome. 

mnus,* who, no doubt, knew that his wife was a profelyte, and, that it 
was expe&ed of profelytes to make prefents to the temple, went him- 
felf to Capreae, and complained of the fraud to Tiberius. And what 
faid Tiberius?—Was he not offended at Saturninus for interrupting his 
repofe with fuch a filly complaint?—efpecially if he had, as Dion fays, 
then furrendered the management of every thing to Sejanus?—Or, did 
he give orders to try them ?—Not he indeed. Inftead of doing fo, he, 
fays Jofephus, not only ordered every thing jewifh—«7r<x* to i 
that is—two or three myriads of Jews, with their profelytes, if not 
believers and unbelievers, to leave Rome—but likewife 4,000 jewifh 
libertines to be fent to Sardiniaf as foldiers, and punifhed moft of the 
reft of the libertines for refuting to ferve. And all this, as Jofephus 
would have us to believe, for the offence of this felf exiled wretch 
and his three accomplices: 

So replete with incredible particulars is the account which this 
prince of facerdotal hiftorians has had the affurance to recommend to 
our notice—and, as attefted by Agrippa, the younger.—An account 
never objected to by learned interpreters, though calculated only for 
the inhiation of the illiterate! And an account in which there is 
much more falfhood than any one can well eftiinate without attend¬ 
ing to the particulars. Let us endeavour to make ourfelves acquainted 
with them. 

* How could this Saturninus, if he was any way related to Saturninus men¬ 
tioned by Dion as having been, for writing verses against Tiberius, precipitated 
from the Capitol, six years before, have presumed to trouble Tiberius with 
any complaint, and especially with so silly an one against his friends the Jews? 

+ He begins £. thus—And about the same time—K<z* vtto rtss xvms xpovix 
—(the resurrection of Jesus) another sad disaster befell the Jews of Rome.— 
And, he ends it thus—I now proceed to relate what happened to the Jews of 
Horae, at this time—x*r« rerov rov xpow,, 


273 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

In the firft place, he, it fhould be obferved, has not told us the 
names of thofe four tranfgreffors of the law, nor the nature of their 
tranfgreffions, nor why, as the Jews then poffeffed the privilege of 
fending to ftrange cities for fuch tranfgreffors, thofe four Ifraelites 
were, not only, not apprehended, but permitted to live unmolefled 
at Rome, and to fet up for interpreters of that very law which they 
had tranfgreded—an occupation which they could not follow in 
private nor in public, unlefs they had been of the tribe of Levi. 
In the next place y he fays, that this execrable wretch found means to 
ingratiate himfelf with this noble lady, (who, he fays, was before a 
profelyte,) and not only he, but three others as worthlefs as himfelf. 
In the third place, we perceive, he does not fay that they taught any 
thing contrary to the law. Indeed as Fulvia was before a profelyte to 
its fpirit, and mull, of courfe, be fuppofed to have been, in a great 
meafure, acquainted with its precepts, it cannot be fuppofed that fhe 
would have liftened to them, if they had attempted to inflill tenets 
into her contrary to thofe received by other profelytes.— In the fourth 
place, he informs us that this worthlefs gang contrived to obtain from 
her valuable prefents, in addition, no doubt, to her accuflomed obla¬ 
tions for the temple, which they took care to apply to their own ufe 
—and, without reminding us of thofe feveral edi&s which, he had 
before laid, were publifhed by Auguflus, and Agrippa, &c. threaten¬ 
ing punilhment to fuch offenders.— In the fifth place, we find, he 
would have us to believe that Fulvia did not complain of this facri- 
legious fraud to Sejanus, though that minifler had, as Dion fays, found 
means to recommend himfelf to the efteem of all the noble married 
ladies of Rome, and for the purpofe of difcovering the fentiments and 
affions of their hufbands, and had rendered them fubfervient to his 
views, but to her hufband, who, and not the Jews of Rome, com¬ 
plained of it, (not to any magiftrate,) but, to Tiberius, then refiding 


/ 


Uu 








271 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

at Caprece, and totally inattentive to all political affairs, (even to the 
internal pavor,) if not overcome with grief.— In the Jixth place, he fays 
that Tiberius, who, as Agrippa told Caius, p. 800, D., was, though 
by no means apt to be irritable, enraged when he heard that Pilate 
had prefumed to introduce his ftandards into the holy city—and, who, 
as the fame writer told the fame prince, p. 801, F., continued, at the 
very time, the daily oblation of a bull and two lambs—and, who, as 
Jofephus himfelf fays, A. xviii. 2, y., was intimately acquainted with 
Herod, the tetrarch—and, who, as he again fays, 7, was glad to 
hear of the return of Agrippa to Italy, a year or two after—notwith- 
flanding all this, he affures us, that Tiberius, on hearing of the facri- 
legious fraud, inflead of punifliing thofe unprincipled Ifraelites, ac¬ 
cording to the tenor of the edicts publifhed by his two fathers-in-law, 
inflantly ordered every thing jewifh, or, the Jews, believing and un¬ 
believing, and their profelytes (among whom we, furely, may reckon 
Fulvia) to leave Rome.— In the laft place , he fays, that Tiberius, who, 
as Philo fays, p. 783, F., always lived in peace—who, as Paterculus 
fays, ii. 126, was, at no time, more blelfed with it than in the 16th 
year—who, as Tacitus fays, iv. 74, was totally unconcerned at the 
revolt of the Frifii—who, as Suetonius fays, iii. 37, never undertook 
any expedition afterwards, not content with all this feverity towards 
twenty or thirty thoufand Jews, and their profelytes, for this lingle 
offence of three or four wretches, for which the roman as well as the 
jewifh laws had provided a punifhment, ordered the confuls to enlift 
moft of their libertines ,* and (though Paterculus remarks, ii. 130, with 

Philo, ad C. p. 785, C., says, that the Jews of Rome occupied a great 
part of the city — and, that they were mostly freedmen. — t.Zjs uvthyjTo 

Kspav r£ [xsyxXyv rys P x[xys a.nrorofxyv, yv yyvosi y.xreyo(x vjvv 

y.a.i o;h«/xevv jy mpos ihSxiuiv, pco^xlol Ss y<7<xv ot ttA sms otTrsXsvQspswOevTss. xiyjxx'Kurcxi 
yxp xypi'irss sis IraA/av, vtto ruv KTyaxrMvxv y\sv9spu9ycrxy, v$sv ruv 'nurpiui 
e Tr/zpxyxpoi\zi &iz<r9svTts. 


27,5 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

^ _ L 

how little inconvenience to the public he had, juft before, raifed a 
levy,) to punifh thofe who refufed to enlift, and to fend 4,000 of 
tliofe who did enlift to Sardinia, one, as Paufanias fays,* of his own 
provinces, there, as Tacitus and Suetonius, we have feen, fay, to 
perifh by the inclemency of the climate.—And, all this he fays, with¬ 
out telling us why thofe libertines were treated worfe than others—- 
and, why thofe who did enlift were treated worfe than thofe who did 
not—and, without telling us how long this feverity lafted. 

Of thofe feveral moft incredible particulars does this jumble of 
falfehoods conlift. And though any one of common fenfe may fancy 
that he fees the enormity of the component parts, and, confequently 
of the whole—yet to view it as a folitary monfter of jewifh ftdlion, 
will not be enough—it will be neceftary to place it in contraft with 
an egyptian of fomewhat the fame caft. 

In the fedlion immediately preceding (}) Jofephus relates how Dedus 
Mundus wanted to feduce Paulina, the wife of Saturninus , who, not- 
withftanding the expuldon of the Egyptians, as Tacitus fays, feven or 
eight years before, happened to be a votary of Ids. Paulina relifted 
his overture. Mundus then applied to the priefts of Ids, who, on 
being well rewarded, went to Paulina and told her that the God 
Anubis would be glad to have a night’s lodging with her: this made 
her vain, and—&c. This Saturninus alfo made his complaint to Tibe¬ 
rius.—And what followed?—Were the Egyptians all expelled from 
Rome?—No fuch thing, though Suetonius, we have juft feen, fays, 
that they were.—What then?—Tiberius ordered all the priefts to be 
crucified, the temple of Ids to be demolifhed, and her ftatue to be 
thrown into the Tyber. 

* K xi iXivQtpov 0 Nf puv xtyivitTiv xnrxvruv t xXXxyw Trpos Sy/xov r noir i crxiJitvoi too 
VuiiAXiuv. 'Zxf^u yxf> rrjv vvktov ts rx (xxXtrx tv$xi[Aovx xvn v^io-iv xvre• 

Sixes', I’ausan. p.< 428. 


U u 2 







276 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

Jofephus, it fhould be obferved, does not precifely mention the year 
when this expulfion of his countrymen from Rome happened.—He 
only fays that it happened after the death of our Lord.—And for the 
reafons before adduced by us, in examining the report which Sueto¬ 
nius has made of this affair, it cannot be fuppofed to have happened 
before the year 783.—Some indeed may be almoft inclined to infer 
this, from the confideration that Jofephus has afterwards, vii. r., men¬ 
tioned the confpiracy of Sejanus, in which moft of the libertines were 
concerned—and, from this, that he fays that it was the confuls— 
ot vvacroi —who punifhed the jewifli libertines for refufing to enlift.—In 
his account of the expulfion of the Jews he does not intimate that 
the confpiracy of Sejanus then took place—nor, in his account of the 
confpiracy of Sejanus, does he fay that the expulfion of the Jews then 
took place. 

Let us, in the laft place, enquire what Philo fays of the expulfion 
of the Jews from Rome : 

Philo, in two of his works—viz—in FI. and ad C., feemingly alludes 
to their expulfion.—In his work, ad C., after having told us how very 
kind Auguftus always was to the Jews of Rome, he proceeds to tell us 
how Tiberius behaved to them in the fame manner, till juft before 
the death of Sejanus: when he, till the death of that minifter, difturbed 
the repofe of all thofe in Italy. The ftri& verfion of his own words 
is nearly this—and under Tiberius it was exadlly the fame, excepting 
only the agitation of thofe in Italy, when Sejanus was fabricating the 

impofition —xat mi T iQtfiu fxsvroi tov avrov rpoirov, xaWoi ruv ev IrxXix 7 rxpx- 

xivnQivruv, vivtxx ivi'ixvos tatvufu tyiv miQt<nv.~-B y which it appears that not 
only the Jews of Rome, but thofe of Italy, were in commotion when 
Sejanus was fabricating his impofition, but, for what reafon, it does 
not appear, unlefs it was becaufe they not only knew that Sejanus was 


277 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews f rom Rome. 

fabricating his impofition, (which, furely, would imply, according to 
the report of Juvenal* and Dionf of this affair, that the Jews all over 
Italy knew more of this matter than the inhabitants of Rome,) but, 
that his impofition would affeCl them. But were it indeed fo, what 
reafon had they, as they were fo thoroughly convinced that Tibe¬ 
rius was their friend, -to be alarmed on that account ?—In how very 
different a manner does Philo, V. Maximus, and Juvenal fpeak of this 
fuppofed plot of Sejanus ! Philo fays, that the Jews only or chiefly 
would oppofe it, and that Sejanus, on that account, prevailed on 
Tiberius to expel them. F. Maximus fays, that Sejanus intended to 
maffacre all the people of Rome , that the peace of the whole world 
would have been difturbed. Juvenal fays, that the people of Rome 
did not know, even after the death of Sejanus, for what crime he had 
fuffered. Of what nature was this impofition that it could have affeCl - 
ed all the Jews of Italy fo much more than the people of Rome ?—- 
Was it an impofition that was likely to affeCl the fovereignty of their 
great benefactor the emperor 5 —If it was, muft not the Jews have, not- 
withftanding they, as the Talmud of Jerufalem fays, had, in the year 
783, been deprived of the power of inflicting capital punifhments, and 
of the privilege of demanding the releafe of any prifoner every year, 
been very much attached to his government ?—But if fuch was the 
attachment of all the Jews of Italy to the perfon and government of 
Tiberius, how is it that Jofephus affures us, A. xviii. 8, 0., that Herod, 
the tetrarch, was, by his brother-in-law Agrippa, accufed to CaiusJ 
of having been concerned in it?—Do not Philo and Jofephus feem to 
dilagree, not a little, in their evidence on this point?—Let us how- 

* Sat. x. 69, &c. Sed quo, &c. t Dion, 1. 58, p. 624, D. 

£ Josephus says, B. ii. 9, e., that Agrippa went, before the death of Piso, 
to Rome to accuse Herod of something to Tiberius—and, that he took no 
notice of it. 







278 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

ever proceed to hear what Philo fays followed, immediately on the 
fall of Sejanus, this commotion of the Jews of Italy. 

He continues thus—“ Immediately after whofe death, Tiberius, 

“ knowing that the things he had faid, againft the Jews of Rome, 

“ were falfe and invented by himfelf, and that he aimed at injuring, 

“ not only thofe of Rome or thofe of Italy, but, the whole nation, as 
“ being aware that, belides their engagement to defend the life of the 
“ emperor, they would be the firft, if not the only people, to oppofe 
“ his impious intentions and actions, enjoined his ordained minifters, 
“ every where, to comfort thofe that were refiding in heathen cities, 
<c but to reprimand only the culpable, who were not many—and to 
“ make no alteration in their cuftoras, and to hold, as a depofit, their 
“ perfons as peaceable, and their laws as conducive to regularity.” 

— zyvu [aetx rnv zxttvs teXevtvjv, on roc. xxTTyopriQzvToc r uv cox.vix.otuv rr,v PufxYiv 
Its^xiuv, -vJ/soSe/s riaocv ^ixQoXxi, 7 tXx<t[jloctx 'Lvitocvts to eQvos xvxpvxaai QeXovtos, 

07TE p V) /XOVOV, V Vjdsi fixKoLlS XVOCTtXlS XXI •npx^ZVl avnQvKJO^EVOV, VTStp TU 

<7rxpxo'Trov$r>0v)vxt xiv^vvEvaxvros xv roxpxTopos, xxi rois 'jrxvTxyocrz yzlporovois vTtxp • 
ypis zTUaxvi-^t, •nxpxyopvicrxi [xev res xxtoc, tsoKecs tuv octto m eOvss,* aX}C etu 
( ri^yo-xi) (xovus ms air las, oXiyoi ce tctxv, xavvjtxi oe (a.vi $zv tuv e| zQas, xXXx xxi 
KxpaxxTxQvixriv ms rs av^pxs w<? ztpnvtxtss txs <pvasis, xxt rx yopjccpax &>$- 

a\Ei<povra. vrpos ev^x9eixv.\ 

But what?—Does Philo here indeed affirm that Tiberius, foon after 
the fall of Sejanus, knew that Sejanus had accufed the Jews to him of 
feveral things falfely—that he knew that he did fo in order to deftrov 
the whole nation—that he alfo knew that the Jews would be the ffift, 

* tcrus, zQvss Tt[xupo(j.EVHs ms says the margin. — But, what if we suppose that 
etu is only a part of the verb zTunywcrot .1 ?—Would it not correspond a little 
better with Trxpxyopvjcrxt ? 

t Does not this last clause seem to be a plain contradiction of the Talmud of 
Jerusalem?—At least, if it is to be understood of capital punishments in general. 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Borne . 

if not the only people, to rife in his own defence, and, to oppofe the 
impious intentions and deeds of Sejanus ?—-That he does indeed mean 
to affirm, at leaft, that Sejanus fought to deftroy the whole nation of 
the Jews is rendered pretty evident by what he fays in the beginning 
of his work againft Flaccus, where he fays, p. 747, that Flaccus was 
the next after Sejanus who confpired to injure the Jews—not the 
whole race, as Sejanus had done, for he had not fo much power— 

AETTEPOS [aetx Iviixvov xkkos AxiWios oix^e^etxi rrw yf.ot.rx ruv luoxiuv eiri 
SaArjv, tTvp.'TTxv (xtv xOntTirxt to eQvos utririf weivos « IW4 9eis, t\xrrxs yxp Erp^s txs 

sis rnr xpopuxs .—By this then it appears that Philo meant to affirm 
that Sejanus formed a confpiracy, not only againft the Jews of Rome 
or thofe of Italy, but againfl the whole race —that is, furely, againft 
thofe who believed in Jefus Cbrill, as well as againft thofe who did 
not believe in him, and, for the purpofe of carrying into effe£l, it 
ffiould feem, the imposition—and, that he had the addrefs to perfuade 
Tiberius to let him difturb thofe of Rome and Italy. But how could 
any prime minifter have thought of injuring a whole nation, and fo 
difperfed as the Jews were, and by accufing them to his fovereign, 
and to a fovereign fo attached to them as, we have feen, Tiberius then 

w — 

was?—Of what could he have accufed a whole nation, efpecially one 
fo difperfed and divided as the jewiffi nation then was ?—Philo, and 
lie only, tells us that it was to effect fome impofition. Now if that 
impofition confided in any project againft his fovereign, why did not 
Sejanus, as he fo far fucceeded as to get the greateft obftacle removed, 
proceed to accomplifh it?—However, if Tiberius did really order all 
the Jews to be expelled from Rome, in confequence of the charges 
alledged againft them by Sejanus, and was, immediately after the tall 
of that minifter, fo convinced that the charges alledged againft them 
were falfe, and, that they only, or chiefly, would have oppofed Sejanus, 
and have defended himfelf, ordered all his praefedts to treat thofe in 







280 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

Gentile cities with kindnefs—why did not Agrippa mention it in his 
epiftle to Caius?—In that epiftle, he, wc find, fpeaks very highly of 
the protection which Tiberius always afforded the Jews, and of the 
refpeCt w 7 hich he manifefted for the fervice of the temple, and though 
he, in it, adverts to the, as he was pleafed to call it, fevere treatment 
which he himfelf experienced from him, juft before his death, yet he 
never alludes to expulfion of his countrymen from Rome. If we may 
believe Jofephus this fame Agrippa, went to Rome to accufe Herod 
of having been an accomplice with Sejanus in that confpiracy, which, 
if true, proves, furely, that Sejanus could not have confpired againft 
all the Jews, at leaft, if not that he could not have confpired againft 
any of them—and, that all the Jews were not well affeded to Tiberius. 
Jofephus too, though he fpeaks both of the expulfion of his country¬ 
men, and, of the confpiracy of Sejanus, fays, not that Sejanus was 
the caufe of their expulfion. And of the confpiracy of Sejanus, he fays, 
that he was fupported by the Senate, by the freedmcn , and by a great 
part of the army,* and (if the charge of Agrippa againft Herod was, 
as he fays, true) by him alfo. And he further fays, that the difcovery 
of it w r as made to Tiberius by Antonia, the mother of Livilla, who 
was, at laft, by the confent, no doubt, of all parties, fhortly to be 
married to him.f 

* Suetonius says, lii. 48—dVIiliti nihil unquam largitus est, praetcrquam 

singula raillia denarioruin praetorianis, quod Sejano se non accommodassent. _ 

Now as Sejanus was the commander of those praetorian cohorts, how can it be 
thought that other divisions of the army would support him, if his own would 
not?—Suetonius subjoins—at quaedam munera Syrians legionibus quod sola: 
nullam Sejani imaginem coluisseut.—And again, 65, he says—Aptatis etiam 
navibus ad quascumque legiones raeditabatur fugam. 

t As Dion says, 1. 58, p. 623, A., that Sejanus contrived to ingratiate him¬ 
self with all the honorable married ladies of Rome, and, that he, in order to 
obtain the secrets of their husbands, promised them marriage, how can we be 
expected to believe that every one of them, knowing he was about to disap* 
point them by marrying Livilla, still concealed his treachery? ' 


281 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Borne. 

Having now endeavoured to make ourfelves acquainted with what: 
Philo fays of the commotion of the Jews of Italy, while Sejanus was 
fabricating the impofition, and what he appears to fay of the different 
manner in which Tiberius behaved towards moft of thofe in Gentile 
cities, and towards fome of them immediately after the death of 
Sejanus. Let us in the laff place attend to what he may be underflood 
to fay of the year when Sejanus fabricated the impofition, and thereby 
fet the Jews of Italy in commotion. 

In the year 782, fays Tacitus, v. 4, 5, 6, when the Senate and the 
populace of Rome appeared to be ready for rebellion, Sejanus was 
very forward to oppofe them. In the year 783, fays Pifterculus, 
ii. 127, 128, he was the obedient afliflant of the emperor—and fo, 
we may conclude, from what Juvenal fays, S. x. 92, continued till 
his death. But if we may believe Suetonius, iii. 65, he was, before 
he was made conful, or before the year 784 began, meditating a re¬ 
volution—and fo long before the commencement of that year, that 
Tiberius had, before the year began, been apprifed of it.—Sejanum 
res novas motientein vix tandem et aflu magis ac dolo quam print ipaii 
au&oritate fubvertit. Nam primo ut fe per fpeciem honoris dimitteret, 
coliegam fibi in quinto confulatu affumpfit, quern longo interval!o ob 
id ijifum fufc eperat.—Now if Tiberius knew that Sejanus was, even 
while he was at Capreae, plotting a revolution, and, was fo confident 
of his own fuperiority in the art of counter plotting, as to fend him to 
Rome to be his colleague in the confulfhip for the year 784, for the 
purpofe of deflroying him, how can we think that he, who, as Philo 
fays, ad C. p. 772, A., knew mankind better than any one, either 
before or afterwards, permitted his prime minifler to perfuade him 
that the Jews, whom he, furelv, knew, as well as Philo, to be as 








282 


Tiberius did not expel the Jexvs from Rome. 

much attached to himfelf as they were hoftile to Sejanus, had done 
certain things for which they ought to be expelled from Rome and 
Italy ? 

If we may believe Dion, I. 58, p. 623, A., Sejanus began, in the 
year 783, when he found that Tiberius had fent Drufus (who Taci¬ 
tus fays, iv. 36, was, in the year 778, praefeft of the city,) to Rome, 
to be fearful that a change might take place, in the mind of Tiberius, 
and, for that reafon, prevailed on Caftius Longinus, the colleague of 
Vinicius, (who, in the year 785, married Julia, the lifter of Drufus,) 
to accufe him of fomething— n kxt avrov. —And in the fame 
page, B., he fays, that Sejanus contrived, but a little before the begin¬ 
ning of the year 784, to keep his future colleague Tiberius (cunning 
as Suetonius fays he was) in ignorance of every thing then tranfafting 
at Rome. But in p. 625, A., he fays, that Sejanus was fo vacillating 
between exceftive pride and exceftive fear that he could not refolve 
on attempting any thing. And again, at the bottom of that page, 
at E., he fays, that he, when he found that Tiberius had made Caius 
(who, as being the fon of Germanicus, was the darling of the people, 
and who had, as Suetonius fays, iv. 12,* been lately married to Junia 
Claudilla, the daughter of M. Silanus,) a prieft, in the room of his 
brother Drufus, as well as himfelf and his fon, gave ufi all thought of 
making a revolution. Confequently if, as Philo fays, Sejanus, in order 
to accomplilh his impolition, perfuaded Tiberius to expel the Jews 
from Rome, it feems pretty clear, by the evidence above adduced, 
that he muft have done it, at leaft, many months before he was put 

* Non ita multo post Juniam Claudillam M. Silani nobilissimi viri filiam 
duxit uxorein. Delude augur in locum fratris sui Drusi destinatus, priusquara 
inauguraretur, ad Pontificatiiin traductus cst: insigni testiinonio pietatis atque 
indolis: cum deserta desolataque reliquis subsidiis aula, Sejano vero tunc sus- 
pccto, mox et oppresso, ad spem succession^ paullatim admoveretur. 


283 


liberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

to death, if not in the preceding year—viz—783. Indeed when we 
confider what Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 625, D.,—viz—that Tiberius would 
not permit him to come to Caprea?, we fhall have the greater reafon 
to acquiefce in the above conclufion. 

The fum of what Philo fays of the commotion among the Jews of 
Rome and Italy, in the reign of Tiberius, is this—Sejanus, in the year 
7 ^ 3 ’ (the very year in which the Talmud of Jerufalem fays the power 
of inflicting capital punilhments was taken from Ifrael, and the year, 
before he married Li villa,) meditated fome remarkable impofltion.—- 
What this impofltion was he does not fay—he leaves us to conjecture 
by the fequel .—3 his impofltion, he intimates, Sejanus was aware the 
Jews at large (that, we fuppofe, is, believers and unbelievers,) would, 
if not alone, at lead: chiefly, oppofe, partly from attachment to the 
interefts of Tiberius, partly from oppofition to his own wicked pro¬ 
jects and feats, and therefore accufed thofe of Rome to Tiberius of 
feveral things, but, as he lhmfelf fays, falfely; and, by fo doing, pre¬ 
vailed on Tiberius to let him ufe, not only thofe of Rome and Italy, 
but the whole nation, believers as well as unbelievers, unjuftly.—All 
this Philo fays of their oppreflion, in the year 783, and, in the year 
following, till the death of Sejanus. After whofe death, that is, nearly 
a year, if not more than a year after, (for Sejanus was not put to death, 
till OCtober,) Tiberius convinced that the feveral things, of which 
Sejanus had, the year before, accufed them, were without foundation, 
inftantly enjoined all his manually appointed fub-miniiters to comfort 
thofe in Gentile cities, and to reprimand or to punifh thofe who were 
culpable , who, it feems, were, as Philo fays, but few.—To make no 
alteration in their cuftoms, but to refpeCt them for the fake of their 
law. 


Xx 2 


284 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome . 

This, we take it, is very near the fum of what Philo fays of the 
injury done the Jews of Rome and Italy, in the year 783, by Sejanus, 
and of what he fays that minifter intended to do the Jews every where, 
and, of courfe, believers as well as unbelievers—for the believing Jews 
were not then denominated Chriflians. The effects of which injury, 
he would have us to believe, Tiberius, about a year after, endeavored 
to alleviate, by enjoining all his praefefts to treat thofe of the difper- 
fion well, and to reprimand only the culpable, who, he confefles, were 
a few—that is, we fuppofe, in each of their diftri&s. But amidft all 
of it, he, we perceive, fays not a word of the cotemporary privation 
of Ifrael, of the power of putting any one to death, though the Tal¬ 
mud has been underftood to alTert it,* nor of demanding yearly the 
releafe of anv Rate criminal. 

Having now paid due attention to the feveral reports of Suetonius, 
Jofephus, and Philo concerning this tranfa&ion, let us proceed to en¬ 
quire how far they appear to agree or to difagree. 

They appear to difagree in this—that Tiberius either expelled them 
himfelf, or, permitted them to be expelled—and, in this, that he ex¬ 
pelled them in the year 783, the very year in which the Talmud of 
Jerufalem fays Ifrael was deprived of the power of punifhing with 
death.—In all other particulars they difagree not a little. 

Suetonius, who, v. 25, calls Chriftians Jews, fays, that Tiberius, 
of his own accord, expelled his beft friends the Jews, and with them 
the Egyptians, from Rome, and from that city only; and this he, we, 
to our no little furprife, find, fays, Tiberius did, at the very time when 
he cared nothing for the republic, nothing for religion, or the Gods, 

* If those two remarkable events happened by the order of Tiberius, and 
in the same year, how is it that neither Philo or Josephus mentions the one, 
aor the Talmud the other? 


285 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

and had even quarrelled with Apollo arid had attempted to deftroy all 
his oracles near Rome, for exercifing their profane rites. Suetonius 
alfo fays, that he fent the jewifh youths, and them only, into the un¬ 
healthy provinces, and, that he did it—per fpeciem facramenti—that 
is, furely, not as foldiers, for all the other Jews, befides the 4,000, 
fent to Sardinia, refufed, as Jofephus, we fhall prefently find, fays, to 
ferve—but, as Suetonius again fays, iii. 65, of the million of Sejanus to 
Rome—per fpeciem honoris—under a colour of a, or the facrament.* 
And, laftly, he, by faying that the reft of the fame nation, (that is the 
jewifh) and thofe of a like religious perfuafton, were threatened with 
perpetual fervitude if they did not obey, feems to intimate, that they 
were roman citizens, if not that they were never permitted to return. 

Jofephus, we find, fays, that Tiberius expelled every thing jewifh 
from Rome—and, that he did it, on the complaint of Saturninus 
againft the jewifh impoftors, for applying to their own ufe his wife’s 
coftly oblations to the temple. He alfo afterts that the Egyptians were 
not then expelled. He further fays that the confuls enlifted 4,000, 
and fent them to Sardinia—that the reft would not enlift, and that 
the confuls therefore punifhed them. 

Philo, who fays, that the conduct of Tiberius towards the Jews in 
general was, till the year 783, the very fame as that of their great 
benefa&or Auguftus had ever been, and that the Jews were, for that 
reafon, as much attached to him, as any people, if not more; fays 
alfo, that Sejanus was, in that year, fabricating the impofition, and, 
that he, in order to carry it into effeft, fought to injure the whole 
nation—that he accufed thofe of Rome and Italy of certain things to 
their friend Tiberius, and thereby caufed a commotion.—And, laftly, 

* Tac. iv. 19, Proprium id Tiberio fuit, scelera nuper reperta priscis ver¬ 
bis oblesrere. 





286 


Tiberias did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

that Tiberius, being, not immediately, but fcveral months after, (viz 
—on the death of Sejanus) convinced that the charges were falfe, en¬ 
joined all his manually ordained fub-minifters to comfort thofe that 
were in Gentile cities, and to reprimand, or, to punifli only fome few, 
in each of their feveral diftri&s, who were culpable—and, to Ihew the 
fame refpeft for their law as they had before fhewn—but, of reftoring 
to Ifrael the power of Honing blafphemers, &c. he, it fhould be ob- 
ferved, fays not a word. 

It is not a little remarkable that thofe three hiftorians have attri¬ 
buted the expulfion of the Jews from Rome to three widely different 
caufes, neither of which has the lead claim to verifimilitude. Sueto¬ 
nius fays, that they were expelled for pra£tifing fuperftitious rites.— 
Jofephus fays, that they were expelled becaufe three or four worthlefs 
Ifraelites intercepted a religious lady’s prefent to the temple at Jerufa- 
lem. Philo, who does not tell us in what the impofition, which fet 
the Jews of Rome and Italy in commotion, and which, he fays, they 
were fo ready to refift, confifled, fays, if he meant that they were ex¬ 
pelled, that they were expelled becaufe they were, more than any 
other fet of men attached to Tiberius. And, it is not lefs remarkable, 
that not one of thofe writers appears to have noticed (unlefs Suetonius 
may be thought to have alluded to it by—fuperflitione ea —or, by— 
per fpeciem facramenti—or, by—fimiiia fe&antes—and, Jofephus, by 
nta.'i ro IbWkov) the expulfion of Chriftians from Rome about the fame 
time, though the two Senecas and Tacitus feem to have pretty 
plainly intimated it;—the elder Seneca, by fpeaking of the prevalence 
of the ufage of that mod wicked of all people, after it had been dis¬ 
continued—and, of the facraments of the Jews—and, the younger, 
by faying, that when the facred rights of foreigners were difculfed, the 
abftinence from certain forts of food was reckoned as the chief evi- 




287 


Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

dence of fuperftition;—and Tacitus, by faying, that the execrable 
iuperflition, or mod grievous peft, which crept in, was fupprefled;— 
and, though feveral early Chriftians writers, among whom, we find, 
two of the fecond century, aftert it—and, that they were expelled, 
after the year 782. Neither is it lefs remarkable than either of the 
two forementioned particulars, that not one of thofe three writers has 
noticed any attempt which thofe exiled Jews made to repel the unjufl 
attempt to difturb their repofe, and to evade fuch unheard of barba¬ 
rity. Who can think that any people, who had been in alliance with 
another city nearly two centuries—who had been permitted to fettle 
in the metropolis of that other for more than one—and who, while 
there, had been indulged with extraordinary favors and exemptions— 
and who had been admitted to the rights of citizenfhip, would, with¬ 
out the leaft remonflrance, have tamely confented to be expelled, and 
for no reafon ?—And who can think that any monarch would have 
confented to the expulfion of twenty or thirty thoufand of his beft 
fubje&s for any reafon?—And, efpecially, without hearing what they 
had to offer in their own defence?—And who can think that that 
moft eminently juft and humane monarch Tiberius would have con¬ 
fented to the expulfion of any defcription of roman citizens, efpecially 
of his favorites the Jews, and for a reafon fo abfurd as thofe aftigned 
by the two roman writers, or fo unjuft and fo irreconcileable with his 
juft and fagacious chara&er, as thofe aftigned by the two jewifh. 

Before we take our leave of this enquiry let us endeavour to fatisfy 
ourfelves whether the Jews alone were fet in commotion by the im- 
pofition of Sejanus—or, whether the Romans in general (of whom 
fome, we find, by the report of V. Maximus, were extremely attached 
to Tiberius,) do not appear to have participated in the agitation.— 
That the Jews fhould alone have known what Sejanus intended to do, 
and have been alone difturbed by it, is not a little extraordinary. 


1 






288 


Tiberias did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

Suetonius, we have feen, relates the expulfion of the Jews and of 
others bf the like religious modes of worfhip in the 36th chapter; the 
37th he, we fee, begins with Imprimis —an odd way of beginning a 
chapter it mull be allowed, if the contents of it were not conne£ted 
with thofe of the preceding. But what follows this Imprimis —fcil— 
tuendce pacis a graffaturis ac latrociniis feditionumque licentid , curam 
habuit.—If now there was not any appearance of fedition, why does 
he fay that Tiberius attended to them above any other concern ?— 
And if there was, why Ihould he have increafed the number of mal¬ 
contents by the expulfton of fo large a body of his bed: friends, and 
without any caufe ?—or rather for a molt unjuft caufe ?—And why 
fhould he have fent his moft loyal troops to the unhealthy climates, 
or to Sardinia?—Suetonius next proceeds to fpecify the difpofttions 
which he made in order to preferve the public tranquillity—Stationes 
militum per Italian! folito frequentiorcs difpofuit.—And was not this 
enough to preferve peace ?—Aye. But was he fure by fo doing of 
preferving the peace of Rome ?—Roma?, fays he, caftra conftituit, 
quibus Prastorianae cohortes ante id tempus vagcs et per hofpitia dif~ 
perfte, continerentur.—And was it neceftary to take fo much precau¬ 
tion at Rome?—Which, as Paterculus, V. Maximus, and Dion fay, 
abounded, in the 16th and 17th years, with his friends?—And after 
he had expelled one-third of the inhabitants ?—Were the Romans too 
inclined to be feditious?—Populares tumultus, he fubjoins, exortos 
graviftime coercuit—and not only fo—et ne orirentur fedulo cavit.— 
And potwithftanding all this precaution, the populace of Pollentia, it 
feems, contrived to make a riot, and under a very licentious pretence. 
This, however, he quickly ftopt by fending two cohorts, one from the 
city and one from a neighbouring kingdom on the Alps, and fo con¬ 
triving it that they Ihould enter Pollentia at the fame time at oppoftte 
gates. After having related all this under the head— Imprimis— and as 


) 




289 

✓ i ■ 

Tiberius did not expel the Jews from Rome. 

having happened nearly about the fame time —id tem/ms —he goes on 
to fay —Abolevit et jus moremque afylorum qua ufquam erant . And what 
are we to underhand by this, if not that the abolition of the afyla, 
was, fome how or other, conne&ed with thofe riots, if not with the 

r 

expulHon of the Jews, and of the iimilia fe&antes, and with ihe tranf- 
portation of the jewifh libertines to Sardinia?—Now the abolition of 
the afyla, we have feen, happened, after the death of our Lord, or, 
rather, in the year 783. Why then fhould we not fuppofe that thofe 
riots happened about the fame time ? 


V v 




290 







• s'* 


CHAPTER XVI. 


The Senate , u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews from 
Rome — and, Tiberius then protected them . 

In the chapter immediately preceding, we difcovered that there 
is not the leaft reafon to fufped Tiberius of having expelled his beft 
friends the Jews from Rome—and, in that fame chapter, we alfo per¬ 
ceived, that there is no little reafon to fuppofe that by Jews, Jofephus, 
Suetonius, and Tacitus meant believers and unbelievers, with their 
refpe&ive profelytes, or, Jews and Chriftians. Let us now proceed 
to enquire when the gofpel was firft preached at Rome—and, endea¬ 
vour to difcover why the Jews and Chriftians were expelled from that 
city—and why the libertines were treated worfe than the other Jews 
—and why 4,000 of them were fent to Sardinia—and, alfo, by whom 
thofe two feifts were expelled—whether they were expelled by the 
fame power—and, laftly, why Philo fays, that Tiberius, immediately 
after the death of Sejanus, fent to all his foreign manually ordained 
fub-minifters to check the culpable few Jews in their refpedive de¬ 
partments. 







I 


291 

The Senate , u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews } 8$c. 

Clemens of Rome, who, we find, was, by his own account, at Rome 
when our Lord was put to death*—and, who, we alfo find, and, by 
his own account too, was related to Tiberius,f fays, in three of his 
works ,X that the death, refurre&ion, and afcenfion of our Lord were 
publicly announced at Rome a few weeks after the lad mentioned 
event—that many (among whom, there, no doubt, were not a few 
jewilh frequenters of the temple fervice, and among thofe a pretty 
large party of jewilh libertines,) arrived in Italy, from Judea, foon 
after that event—and that they were all full of the news of the won¬ 
derful works, which, he, for feveral years, had been performing.— 
Clemens alfo fays, that every body at Rome was occupied in nothing 
elfe but in hearing thofe reports, and in talking of what this new mef- 
fenger from God had faid and done—that every day frefh intelligence 
arrived—that frequent meetings were held, in every part of the city, 
to enquire about the defign of his million—that the vague rumours of 
what he had faid and done were foon confirmed beyond a doubt,§ not 
only by the arrival of the Jews who dwelt at Rome (who, it feems, 
were moftly libertines) and their roman profelytes, but by that of 
manifcft (that is, perhaps, Hate) mefiengers, who, probably, brought 
a full account of the matter from Pilate.—Clemens moreover lays, 
that, before the fummer was ended, a man named, not Peter, obferve, 
but Barnabas,|| who had been one of the followers of this wonderful 
meflenger from God, and who, we prefume, was the vile outcaft men¬ 
tioned by the vilelt of all vile wretches Flavius Jofephus, handing in 
the moll public place of the city—urbis loco celeberrimo attehed 

* Recog. 1. i. init.—Horn. 1. i. init.—de G. P. init. 
i R. vii. 8.—Horn. xii. 8.—de G. P. c. 46. + R. H. de G. P. 

\ R. i. 7. || Ilom. i. 6.—de G. P. c. 6. 

y y 2 


/ 




292 


The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, 8$c. 

the truth of the fa&s, of which they had heard fo much from fo many 
others, and, that he even appealed to the teftimony of many among 
his hearers, who had heard and feen thofe things, which he himfelf 
attefted, for the truth of them—and, that he offered, in the name of 
that meflenger from heaven— eternal life to thofe who would become 
his followers.—Clemens next fays, that he himfelf then became a con¬ 
vert to the preaching of Barnabas, and, with him, moft of the multi¬ 
tude—cum reliqua multitudine—and, that Barnabas was, by fome of 
the hearers, derided and fcoffed at, for what he had faid, fome of 

' ‘ >,, J - * 

whom were even proceeding to commit a&s of violence on his per- 

' ■ 

fon, when Clemens, to fave his inftru&or from their fury, defired him 
to take refuge in his own houfe—and, that Barnabas, unwillingly, 
accepted the offer.—Barnabas, adds Clemens, was fo fhocked at this 
outrageous attempt made on him, that he, before the autumn was 
ended, returned to Judea—evidenter indicans, injuriae fe horrore per- 
culfum. 

Now why, as thofe things had been reported by fo many witneftes, 
and even by meflengers of the ftate, before Barnabas arrived at Rome, 
fhould fo much oppofition have been made to his teftimony. concern¬ 
ing them, unlefs he had announced the divinity of this meffenger from 
God?—But by whom was the preaching of the gofpel at Rome chiefly 
oppofed?—Was it oppofed by the idolatrous inhabitants—or, by the 
Jews ?—If we may believe Tacitus, it muft have been oppofed either 
by Tiberius, or, by the Senate—for, of that execrable fuperftition, 
chriftianity, he fays, that it was repreffed—and, of the graviflimum 
exitium, he alfo fays, that it was reprefled. But would any of the 
idolatrous inhabitants have oppofed any teacher of morality or feience? 
Have we not reafon to fuppofe, by confdering what Luke fays in the 
A<fts, that the Jews—that is, not the Jews indifcriminately, but the 
libertines, or, thofe that had been made free of Rome, were the chief 


293 


t 


The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, &;c. 

\ 

* 

oppofers of the faith ?—He there informs ns that the libertines had a 
fynagogue of their own at Jerufalem—that they were the very men 
who, a few months after, difputed with Stephen. Now about what 
could they have difputed with him but about the dignity of our Lord ? 
If it was not about that point, why fhould they have thought of 
feizing him, and taking him before the Sanhedrin?—And why fhould 
they have borne fuch teflimony againft him as caufed him to be floned 
as a blafphemer ? 

Let us next attend to the teflimony which a Jew has adduced con¬ 
cerning the oppofite conduct which Tiberius and the Senate followed 
on hearing of the refurredlion of our Lord. r l he Jew, to whofe re¬ 
cord of it we mean to refer, is Mofes, the Chorcncnfian, who, it feems, 
wrote the hiflory of Armenia, in the language of that country—a 
writer very little known, and not thought worthy of notice, even by 
thofe who have the cuftody of his work,* though it has been trans¬ 
lated into latin by William and George Whifton, the fons of the 
learned William Whifton, of Sidney Suflex College, Cambridge. The 
teftimonv which this writer lias adduced is not his own—it is that of 
no lefs a perfon than Tiberius himfelf, who, he fays, having received 

a letter from Abgarus,f the king of Edcfla, concerning the moft won- 

, . » 

* A copy of this curious work is said to be in the library of Ex. Coll. Oxf. 

+ In the letter of Ahgarus to Tiberius the following sentence occurs—viz— 
nomenque ejus omnibus locis etiarouum per (liscipulos ipsius miracula maxima 
perficit id quod in me demonstravit—yiz hy healing him. 

Now when was Abgarus healed?—If we may believe Eusebius, Eccl. hist. i. 
last'chapter, he was healed in the 340th year of the zera of the Seleucidas— 
TotvTx T(/T< 7 xpxy.o^u) v.xt t pixuoa'ico sTti which ail a began at the autum¬ 
nal a?quinox, in the first year of the 117 th olympiad; therefore the 340th year 
of it, or, 85 olympiads must have tallied with the first year of the 202d olym¬ 
piad—or the beginning of the 340th year of the Edessenes, must have about 
three months after that of the 20Sd olympiad—or wifh the last half of u. c. 782. 



294 


The Senate, u. c . 783 , expelled believers as Jews, 8;c. 

# 

/ i 

derful works of our Lord, the total darknefs of the fun while our Lord 
was fufpended on the crofs, the earthquake that happened while he 
was in the grave, and his refurreftion from the dead, and which letter 
that prince concluded with this remarkable fentence—“ Jam itaque 
<c novit majeftas tua, quid de Judseorum populo imperandum fit, qui 
“ ha?c perpetrarunt, ftatuendumque per totum orbem ut Chrijlum co- 
“ lant tanqiiam verum Deum Vale.—returned the following anfwer: 

“ Tiberius Romanorum Caefar, Abgaro regi falutem.-Le£ta fuit 

“ coram me epiftola amicitiae tuae, ob quam gratia a nobis tibi haben- 
“ da eft, quanquam et a multis hoc ipfum prius audiveramus. Mira- 
“ cula ejus luculenter etiam expofuit Pilatus, eumque, poftquam e 
“ mortuis furrexit, a multis pro Deo fuifte habitum. Ac proplerea, 

“ volui ipfe idem facere, quod tu cogitafti; fed cum Romanorum con- 

/ \ 

“ fuetudo fit, ut, Imperatoris modo au&oritate, neminem in Deorum 
“ numero reponant, dum a Senatu tentatus fuerit probatufque, ideo 
“ rem ad Senatum retuli; refpuit autem Senatus,* quod ab ipfo 
“ primum quaeftio de eo non fuerat habita. Nos autem unicuique, qui 
“ volet Jiermijimus , ut "Jefum in Deos recijiiat , mortemque illis minati 
“ fumus, qui Chrijlianos criminari jiergant. De Judaeor.um autem 
“ populo, qui eum temere aufi funt cruci fuffigere, quern ego non 

“ cruce, fed honore et veneratione dignum fuifie audio, ubi a bello 

. 1 \ 

* This probably happened before the death of Li via, for then, it seems, he 
refused the apotheosis of her, ni coelestis religio decerneretur—and therefore 
it must have happened either in the latter part of 781, or, in the beginning 
of 782. 

If the Senate refused, in the year 781 or 782, to permit the worship of 
Christ—why did they, in the years 782, 783, 784, permit the worship of 
Sejanus?—For so Dion tells us, 1. 58, p. 622, B., p. 626, B., they did: and, 
p. 625, B., that Sejanus used to sacrifice to himself? 

In a subsequent letter of Abgarus he hints that it would be proper to re¬ 
call Pilate, and he, we have seen, was recalled, and died on his voyage. 


V 


/ 


295 

The Senate , u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews , fyc. 

“ cu m Hifjianis , qui a me defecere , otium na&us fuero, re explorata iis 
“ pro mentis retribuam.”—Mofes has fubfcribed the following memo¬ 
randum—“ Abgarus depolited a copy of this, and his own letters, in 
“ the archives of Edefla.”—Haec fcripfit Abgarus, atque epidolae ejus, 
ut et cteterarum, exemplum in Tabulario Edefleno repofuit. 

The tedimony of Clemens, the Roman, then feems to agree pretty 
nearly with that of Tiberius himfelf, as related to us by Mofes, the 
Chorenenfian. But is their’s the only evidence on this mod interefling 
of all points which we can obtain ?—Has not any early roman writer 
noticed this interference of Tiberius in behalf of Chridians?—Tacitus, 
we know, fays, that he, with exceffive art, contrived to introduce the 
graviffimum exitium into fome place, mod likely into Rome, but then 
he feems to have faid that he did it u. c. 768. But may not the elder 
Pliny have alluded to this affair in his Nat. hid. ?—He, we find, there, 
xxx. 1, tells us that the cudom of offering up a human facrifice was, 
in the year of Rome 657, by the Senate, interdi&ed, and, that their 
Druids were, in the reign of Tiberius, extirpated—and, moreover, that 
nobody can conceive how much praife the Romans deferved for ex¬ 
tirpating thofe who could think it a very religious a£l to kill a man, 
and a very falubrious one to feed on his fleih. Now in order to have 
a proper notion of what he here means, let us attentively confider 
what is his drift in this chapter. 

The title of it is, we find, this—De origine magic® artis, quando 
et a quibus coeperit, et a quibus celebrata fuerit—et reliqu® ex ani- 
malibus medicina?. In the courfe of that chapter Pliny fays-—Ed et 
alia magices fa£tio, a Mofe et Jamne et Jotape, Judads pendens, fed 
multis millibus annorum pod Zoroadrem. Tanto recentior ed Cypria 
657, demum anno Romce Cn. Corn. Lentulo, et P. Licinio Crailo, 
Cofs. Senatus—confultum fa£!um ed, ne homo immolaretur, palam- 



290 


The Senate , u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews> fyc. 

\ 

que in tempus illud facra prodigiofa celebrata. Gallias utique pofte- 
dit, et quidem ad noflram memoriam. Namque Tiberii Caefaris prin- 
cipatus fuftulit Druidas eorum, et hoc genus omne vatum medico- 
rumque. Sed, continues he, quid ego hcec commemorem in arte?— 
Oceanum quoque tranfgrefta, et ad naturae inane pervefla* Britannia 
hodieque earn attonite celebrat tantis ceremoniis, ut dedifte Perils 
vlderi poflit. Adeo ilia toto mundo confenfere, quanquam difcordi 
fibi et ignoto. Non fatis aeftimari potell, quantum Romanis debeatur, 
qui fuftulere monllra, in quibus hominem occidere religiofiftimum 
erat mandi vero etiam faluberrimum. 

Pliny, we here find, takes it for granted that magic was fome kind 
of art, and, that it was well underftood what that art was, and alfo, 
feems to intimate, that it was, fomehow, conne&ed with animal medi¬ 
cine, and, laftly, that it well underflood what that medicine was.— 
Of the origin of this art he propofes to treat and to fhew when and by 
whom it had been, as he fays, celebrated, and alfo, of the origin of 
the reft of animal medicine, &c. 

After having mentioned the origin of this, as he calls it, art, he 
fays, there is another magic, not art, obferve, but faftion, which, 
feveral thoufand years after Zoroafter, depended on Mofes, and Jamnes, 
and one or two other Jews. Now whom could he have meant by 
Jamnes r—Did not Paul tell limothy, 2d ep. 3d c., that Jamnes with- 
flood Mofes, and, not unlikely, about fome truth ?—Befides—do we 
not read of Mofes that he, in Egypt, contended with, and overcame, 
the magicians of that country ?—How then can he be fuppofed to 
have fupported any magic art or fadlion ?—Does not Strabo tell us, 
xvi. p. 524, that the fuccelfors of Mofes continued, for fome time, to 
do what was right, and to worlhip the Deity in truth ?—Does he not 
alfo fay, immediately after, that, in procefs of time, fome of his fuc* 


297 


The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews , 8gc, 

ceffors deviated from his inflitutes, and introduced fuperftitious tenets, 
fuch as the abftaining from certain forts of animal food ?—And does 
he not, in the fame page, fay, that the Magi of Perfia and the tyr- 
rhenian Arufpices of the Romans were nearly of the fame refpetta- 
bility as Mofes ? 

That Zoroafler, the king of the Baflrians, was faid to have been the 
inventor of the magic arts, is, we find, attefted by Juftin, i. i, who 
there fays, that Zoroafler invented (not the practice of immolating men, 
but) the magic arts, of which the principal, he feems to fay, was the 
fcience of the principles of the world and the motions of the heavenly 

i < 

bodies.—Poftremum illi bellum cum Zoroaflre rege Baftrianorum fuit, 
qui primus dicitur artes magicas invenifle, et mundi principia, fide- 
rumque motus diligentiifime fpeflafle.—Befides faying this, Juftin alfo 
fays, that the Jews derived the knowledge of the magic arts (not from 
Ba&riana, but) from Egypt—and, not lefs, if we may believe the facred 
writers, than three hundred years before the Jews, under the influence 
of Mofes, left Egypt.—Juftin moreover fays, that the firft Jew who 
learnt thofe arts in Egypt was, not Mofes, but Jofeph, who he, to 
our no little aftonifhment, affirms, was the father of Mofes .—Of the 
fkill of this Jofeph, in both human and divine affairs, Juftin then pro* 
ceeds to give the following account—“ For he was very fagacious in 
the meaning of prodigies, and the firft that could explain the fcience 
of dreams: and there feemed to be nothing, either of divine or human 
jurifprudence, that was unknown to him: fo that he forefaw, many 
years, any deficiency of crops: all Egypt would have perifhed by 
famine, if the king had not, by his recommendation, commanded the 
Egyptians to lay up (lores for many years: and fo great were the proofs 
rvhich he gave of his wifdom, on all points, that they feemed to be 




( 


298 

The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, %c. 

the refponfes of a God rather than of a man.”—A quibus deportatus 
(Jofephus) in ^Egyptum cum magicas ibi artes folerti ingenio perce- 

piilet, brevi, ipfi regi percarus fuit. Nam et prodigiorum fagaciffimus' 

/ 

erat, et fomniorum primus intelligentiam condidit, nihilque divini 
juris humanique ei incognitum videbatur; adeo, ut etiam flerilitatem 
agrorum ante multos annos providerit; periilletque omnis ^gyptus 
fame, nil! monitu ejus rex edi&o fervari per multos annos fruges juf- 
fillet; tantaque experimenta ejus fuerunt, ut non ab homine, fed a 
Deo refponfa dari viderentur.—Such is the account which Juflin gives 
of Jofeph, who, he fays, was the firll Jew that learned the magic arts, 
not in Periia, but in Egypt.—An account which fatisfa&orily proves 
that Jofeph w T as greatly in favor with the Deity, and confequently that 
he could not have pra&ifed any fuperftitious rites, much lefs that of 
immolating human victims.—After having- given us this account of 
what Jofeph learnt in Egypt, and of the amazing good which he, by 
his forelight, did the Egyptians, he immediately proceeds to tell us 
how his fon Mofes was the heir of his father’s pre-feience—and that 
he was not only fo, but that his perfon was remarkably graceful— 
Filius ejus Mofes fuit, quern prater paternse feientise hereditatem, etiam 
formae pulchritudo commendabat.—He next proceeds to fay, that the 
Egyptians, by divine monition, expelled him becaufe he was infeCted 
with a contagious diforder, and with him all thofe whom he had in¬ 
fected—that Mofes contrived to fteal their facred rites—and, that 
therefore, the Egyptians inftantly purfued him, till they were, by a 
tempeli, that is, we prefume, by the Deity, obliged to dclilt.—In the 
end of the fame chapter, he furthermore tells us that the defeendants 
of Mofes (among whom he, in the firll place, names Aaron) religioufly 
avoided all intercourfe with all neighbouring nations, and, with what 
incredible firrnnefs they united by mixing jultice with religion. 



299 


The Senate , u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews , $c\ 

This Judin fays of the unfociable religion of the Jews, and there¬ 
fore what reafon have we to think that any nation learned the magic 
arts from them, and, efpecially the Cyprians ?—And of one of the 
poderity of the Magi, in the original country, he fays, xii. 13, that, as 
Alexander the Great was hadening to Babylon, he predicted that if 
he proceeded thither he would die there.—What reafon then have we 
to think that the Magi had any rites that were offenfive to the Gods?* 
Strabo, in feveral parts of his work, gives, we find, pretty nearly the 
fame account of the Magi as Judin, and, book xvi, fays, that they 
were as refpe&able a fet of prieds as any in the world, not excepting 

• v 

even Mofes and his fucceflors, of whom he fpeaks in the highed terms 
—of their manner of facrificing, he, we find, gives an 'account, xv. 
p. 503, 504, an account the more to be relied on becaufe, he fays, 
that he himfelf was an eye-witnefs of their proceedings in Cappadocia, 
in which country, he fays, that there was a very great multitude of 
them, and that Amafea, the place of his birth, was near it—but of 
their offering human victims, he fays not a word. 

Let us now endeavour to difcover the period in which he appears 
to have written his xvi. book, for which purpofe let us confult the 
xii. xiii. xiv.—in thofe only we hope to find data enough to point out 
the year very' nearly. 

In the xii. Strabo fays, of Cyzicum—“ and it is free till the prcfent 
time ”—xxi e?iv t\sv 9 tpx vtv. p. 396.—And what can he have meant 

by adding——Was it not enough to have faid—and it is free? 

* Xenophon, we find, says of Cyrus, chap. viii .—Ovru yty vuctkeiv, rpurov 
fx.sv rx irtpt res Qses (xxWov ei rt^EiKvveiv exvtov ExTovevrx ev reru ru fflovw, S7n^v 
iv^xifioytripos SJv. Kxt tote rspurov kxtetxOyktx v oi fxxyoi v{jlv'eiv te xei xpt.x ry ypxEpx 
res Qeus, kxi Qveiv xv Exx^yv y^spxv as oi (j.xyoi 0eo7s EnroiEv. Ovru rx rare 
xxrxfx^Evrx eti xxt vvv irxpx ru xu ovn, (3xcri>-.t7. k. r. Z. 

Z z 2 


J 







\ 





The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, Sgc. 


Does he not feem to have intimated that it was expefied that Cyzicum 
would fhortly forfeit its freedom ?—A little after, in the fame book, 
he fays, ofMagnefia, Sardes, and other neighbouring cities that they 
had lately been deflroyed by an earthquake—and, that Tiberius had, 
at his own expence, rebuilt them— Kai yap vvv rvv Mayvvcixv rvv vk avru 

xan^aXov anicr^oi, vv'ixa xxi 'Lappets xai ruv aXXuv ras ETutyxn^xrxs xxra nroXka 

(jLipy SieXviavvxto, EKavupOuaE 3’ 0 vyz^uv yjpv[^xra ekuHxs. p. 39 ^> 399 * 

In the xiii. he, we find, repeats what he had before faid ofMagnefia 
— K xi txvtw ekxkvo-xv 01 y evo(xevoi < tekj^oi —p. 427*— And of the haerefy of 
Apollodorus he fays, p. 430— ei tis nor ef/v.—And, in the next p. 431, 
he fays, of Ada, that it had been alfo deflroyed by an earthquake, and 
rebuilt by the beneficence of Tiberius — veu?i vko atuTfMuv an seQxXe koWv» 
tvs Karolinas v ds r« TiCspia nrpovoia ns xaQ' vfsuas vyE(xo)iQs t xat ravrvv (Afia) kxi 

tuv aWuiv avyyas avEXxCs rais EvspyEirixis-— p. 431 •”~"And again, towards the 
end of this book, he fays, p. 443, of the diftrift where the cities An¬ 
tioch and Cybara the Great were fituated, that it had fuffered much 
by earthquakes —evcteitos <>e kxi isros e^iv 0 tokos. 

In the xiv. book, he, p. 441, fays, of the afylum at Ephefus— 

A avXov c$e pevei to ispov KXi vZv kxi Kporspov , Tvs aavXixs Tas opus aXXxyvvat 

cvve£’/) KoWxxts . A vtuvus •jrXva-iaarxvTos nsTu, xxt <717x7 rspiXa^ovTos tv 

aavXix [/.spos Ti tvs koXeus, eQxvv t« ro CxaCspov, xat eiu toTs xaxspyois Koitsv 
Tvv 7 roXiVy us r vxvpuaEv 0 ’ZtQa^os Kaiaap. 

Now as Strabo mufl be fuppofed to have written his xvi. book after 
the xii. xiii. and xiv.—and, in that book, has borne teflimony to the 
refpeflability of the Magi, why fhould we not conclude from the date 
of fome of the events mentioned in thofe preceding books as having 
then happened, and, as about to happen, that he bore this teflimony 
of the Magi after the cities of Afia had been rebuilt, and juft about 
the time when the afyla were abolifhed, and the Cyzicenians were 
deprived of their liberty. 


/ • • 



I 


301 

i 

The Senate , u. c . 783 , expelled believers as Jews , S$c. 

But—how many cities were deftroyed—and, were they all deftroyed 
in the fame year ? 

Tacitus tells us, Ann. ii. 47, that twelve of them were deftroyed 
An. u. c. 770.* He alfo tells us, iv. 13, that Cybaritica was deftroyed 
An. u. c. 776. In the intermediate time one other was, as we are in¬ 
formed by Eufebius, Nicephorus, and others, deftroyed by the fame 
caufe. Now how long can we fuppofe thofe twelve cities were build¬ 
ing?—It took Herod, we find, by Jofephus, at leaft ten years to re¬ 
build Csefarea?—Can we then think that thofe twelve cities were built 
in a period lefs than that?—Would the revenues of Tiberius have en¬ 
abled him to rebuild thofe twelve cities only in a lefs period ?f—How¬ 
ever when Strabo wrote his xii. and xiii. books they had been re-built 
—and, how long we know not.—Let us hear what ancient infcriptions 
fay of the year when thofe twelve cities are fuppofed to have been 
completed. 

The bafis of a column ere&ed at Rome, by the people of Afia, to 
the memory of Tiberius, on, as ’tis thought, this occafion, is faid to 
be ftill extant, on which is the following infeription 

TI. CiESARI 

DIV I, AUGUSTI. F. DIVI. JULII. N. 

AUGUSTO. PONT 1F. MAXIMO. 

cons. iv. imp. viii. trib. potestat. xxxih 

AUGUSTALES RESPUBL1CA REST1TUIT. 

* Other chronologists say, that this earthquake happened a year or two 

later._A greek chronoiogist says that it happened in the 2d year of the 199th 

olympiad. 

t Phlegon says, that Apollonius, the grammarian, spoke of this earthquake; 
of the re-building ofthe cities he says —as vnpov 6 T&ptos oixsw oxvxv* irotXiv 
etyvpQw7tv. 







302 


The Senate , ir. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, $c. 

Now Tiberius was a fourth time conful in the year of Rome 774, 
confequently he could not have re-built thofe twelve cities before that 
year. But, confidering what Jofephus fays of the number of years 
which the re-building of Caefarea alone took, and of the vaft expence 
which it coft, thofe twelve cities cannot well be fuppofed to have been 
completed in lefs than ten years, and if, while thofe were re-building, 
Cybaritica was demoliffied, we may well fuppofe that its inhabitants 
alfo contributed to the expence of the ere&ion of this column. But 
in what year of Rome did the 32d of his tribunitial power happen ?— 
If he, as we have fuppofed, chapter ii, was firft inverted with that 
power in the year 748, and was in pofleffion of it ever after,* he murt, 
in the year 780, have been poftefted of that authority 32 years. 

To this it may be objected, that if Strabo meant to fay that thofe 
cities were re-built about the year in which the people of Qyzicum 
loft their freedom—and if, as Tacitus tells us, Ann. iv. 36, the Cyzi- 
cenians were deprived of their liberty in 778, Tiberius could not, as 
Suetonius affirms, have enjoyed the tribunitial authority, without in- 
termiffion, ftnee 748. Who then has been inaccurate in this matter ? 
Has Strabo, who appears to fay that the cities were .re-built before 
the Cyzicenians were deprived of their liberty?—Or, Tacitus, who, 
fays that the Cyzicenians were punifhed with the lofs of liberty in the 

year 778?—We cannot fuppofe that Strabo has made a miftake in this 

% 

matter, becaufe thofe events murt have happened before he died.— 
Has then Tacitus antidated the difgrace of the Cyzicenians more than 
a year ?—We know that in feveral inftances he has not been fo atten¬ 
tive to chronological pointsf as he ought to have been—and, we alfo 

* Suetonius, iii 11, seems to say that he was not. 

«■» * 

t E. G. He has antidated the time when Tiberius introduced the gravissi- 
mum exitium.—When the Senate expelled the Jews from Rome.—He says 
that the Amphitheatre at Fidense fell before Tiberius retired to Caprea;. 



303 


The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, fyc. 

kiio,w that he fays, iv. 13, that there was a decree palled, at the re¬ 
commendation of Tiberius, in the year 776, to aflift the inhabitants 
of Cybaritica, in Afia, and thofe of yEgira, in Achaia, when their 
cities were deftroyed by earthquakes.—But let us confult Suetonius on 
this point. 

Suetonius fays, iii. 37—Aboievit et jus, moremque afyloruin qus 
ufquam erant.—This we have fhewn is not likely to have happened 
till after the death of our Lord, nor before the year 783.—And in the 
next fentence, he fays—Cyzicenis in cives Romanos, violentius quae- 
dam aulis, publice libertatem ademit.—Suetonius then, we find, places 
the privation of the Cyzicenians, immediately after the abolition of 
the afyla. 

In the next place, Pliny fays, that there is a Cyprian branch of 
this magic faction, and feems to intimate, by ufing the prefent tenfe 
of the verb fubftantive, that it was exifting in his days.—And who 
ever heard of the Cyprian branch of the Mofaic magic faflion ?*— 
Strabo, we know, who gives us an account of Cyprus, fays not a word 
of it.—After mentioning thofe two branches of the magic fa&ion, he 
then proceeds, immediately, to inform us that the practice of immo¬ 
lating a man was continued till the year 657, and that it was then, by 
the Romans prohibited—(which, by the bye, feems to imply that he 
thought the Magi, jewilh and cyprian, ufed to immolate men) that is, 
furely, in thole countries then become fubjeft to Rome, and there¬ 
fore neither in Judea nor in Cyprus.—He next takes a rapid flight to 
Gaul, which country, he feems to fay, the magic faffion ftill poflefled, 
that is, in his own time.—He, laftly, pretends to aftign a reafon why 
it was not continued later—Namque Tiberii Csefaris principatus fuf- 
tulit Druidas eorum , and not only their Druids, but—et hoc genus 
vatum medicorumque—*where, by, Druidas eorum, he could not have 



SO i 


The Senate , u. c . 783 , expelled believers as Jews, $$c. 

meant the Druids of the Gauls, becaufe he had not before fpoken of 
the Gauls, but only of their country—Gallias utique poflidet—and 
therefore he muff have meant the Druids of thofe on whom the other 
magic faCtion, afterwards denominated the Cyprian, depended—fcil—* 
of Mofes, &c.—But how could Mofes be faid to have had any thing 
at all to do with people who facrificed a man, unlefs by being the 
author of that religion which Chrid came to edablifh?—And how 
could the Magi be faid to have been extirpated by Tiberius, when, we 
are informed by Tacitus, vi. 29, it was objected to Scaurus u. c. 787, 
that he had attended their rites ? 

After having told us that the cuflom of immolating a man was 
abolifhed, and having, feemingly, intimated that this was a druidical 
praCtice, he proceeds to fay that this art, as he calls it, after all, found 
means to crofs the fea, and that, when he wrote, it dill exided in Bri¬ 
tain, and with as much fervor as if it had originated in that ifland.— 
He concludes the whole with this remarkable encomium on the huma¬ 
nity of the perfon or perfons who put an entire flop to the praCtice of 
not only immolating a human victim, but of eating his fdefh, out of 
conceit that it was moil falubrious—nobody can conceive how much 
praife the Romans deferved for having extirpated the monders who 
thought it a moil religious aCt to kill a man, and a mod falubrious 
one to eat his flefli. 

And did the magic faction prevail in Britain after the praCtice of 
facrificing men had been interdicted, and after the Druids had, in the 
reign of Tiberius, been removed ?—Even till Pliny wrote ?—And did 
the Senate, in his days, remove, not only the praCtice of offering 
human victims, but even the monfters, who thought it an aCt of the 
greated piety to offer fuch prodigious facrifices, and the mod falu¬ 
brious to feed on the flefh of thofe victims?—And did they, by fo 


V 


305 

The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, 8$c. 

doing, merit the greateft praife?—If they merited fo much praife for it, 
did not Tiberius deferve, at leaft, a part of it?—If not almoft all of it? 
Could the Senate have, without either his command or confent, pre¬ 
fumed to interdift the practice ?—What had they to do with the reli¬ 
gions of other countries, efpecially with that of Gaul or Britain ?— 
Is it not much more likely that Tiberius himfelf put an end to this 

moll inhuman practice, at lead: in Gaul and Britain ?—And if he did, 

■< 

was not all the praife, inconceivable as it was, due to him ?—How is 
it that no writer has noticed either his humanity on this moll extraor¬ 
dinary occafion, or the praife which Pliny fays he deferved for it, or 
any of the confequences that may be fuppofed to have followed the 
prohibition of fo inveterate, fo univerfal, fo inhuman a fuperftition ? 
And how is it that two or three later writers fay that he, who extir¬ 
pated the race of cannibals all ever the empire, was himfelf after¬ 
wards the greateft of all cannibals ?—And that he, who cared nothing 
for the Gods or religion, and was himfelf fo remarkably impious, and 
a fatalift, was fo much concerned about the fuperftition of the Druids ? 

And how did the people who followed this fuperftitious mode of 

worfhip behave on this occalion ?—efpecially they of Gaul ?—where, 

as Crefar fays in his commentaries of the Gallic war, the chief part of 

the nobles of that country were Druids.—Did they too, like the Jews, 

fubmit quietly to the fuppreftion of their fuperftitious pra&ice?—And 

after they had been permitted, by both of the two former CaTars, 

Tulius and Auguftus, to exercife it, for fo many years, without the leaft 

reftri&ion?—If, as Julius himfelf fays, vi. p. 224, one-half of the leading 

men of Gaul were Druids, and the Druids, as he alio fays, regulated aii 

the principal concerns of the religion, and learning, and polity of that 

countrv, would they too fubmit, and without the leaft oppolition, to 

anv innovation in the rites of their religion?—Were they, in the reign 
* 

A a a 


1 


r 








300 

• / 

The Senate , u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, 8$c. 

of Tiberius, known to have refitted the Romans, before or after the 
year 774?—And what does Tacitus fay was the caufe of that rebellion? 
Does he fay that it was excited by any attempt of Tiberius to hinder 
them from immolating men?—Does he not fay, iii. 40, that the Gauls 
were then, by the exa&ion of heavy taxes, irritated to rebel ?—Does 
he not fay that they complained of the magnitude of their debts, and 
of the cruelty and the pride of their rulers?—And does he not fay that 

Sacrovir then endeavoured to perfuade them that the opportunity of 

* 

recovering their loft liberty was at laft arrived?—Eodem anno (774, 
T. 7, 8,) Galliarum civitates ob magnitudinem aeris alieni rebellionem 
coeptavere: cujus exftimulator acerrimus inter Treviros Julius Florus, 

apud ./Eduos Julius Sacrovir.Igitur per conciliabula et coetus 

feditiofa difterebant, de continuatione tributorum, gravitate feenoris, 

fevitia ac fuperbia pradidentium.egregium refumendse libertati 

tempus, &c.—This Tacitus fays was the caufe of the Gallic infurrec- 
tion in the year 774, which, he feems to fay, c. 47, was no foonef 
begun than ended. 

The following year—viz—775 was, fays Tacitus, iii. 52, undifturbed 

• 1 

by external foes—Intutbidus externis rebus annus. Confequently why 
fhould we not fuppofe that the Senate did not make this alteration in 
the fuperftitious rites of the Gallic Druids till after that year ? 

This peaceable ftate of affairs feems, by the account of the fame 
writer, to have continued till the year 777—for, in that year, he com¬ 
plains that he had nothing of importance to write about—that the 
public peace was undifturbed, or, at moft, but (lightly ruffled—Im- 
mota quippe aut modice laceftita pax. 

Paterculus, we alfo find, confirms what Tacitus fays of the difturb- 
ances in Gaul, in the year 774, under Sacrovir, and of the continu¬ 
ance of peace till 777. And he not only fays, with Tacitus, that 

& 


I 




307 


The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, %c. 

% 

V 

every thing remained in a tranquil flate till that year, but he even 
feems to intimate that the fame (late of tranquility remained till the 
year 783.—For after having remarked with what celerity the Gallic 
war was ended, he, in the year 783, exults in the reflection that peace 
had then taken pofleflion of every part of the world. 

There is not then the leaf! reafon to think that the Druids of Gaul 
were at all difcompofed at the queftionable decree. Indeed, if we at¬ 
tend to what Strabo and Suetonius fay of them, we fhall be inclined 
to think that they were, before the reign of Tiberius, in part, if not 
altogether, induced to difcontinue this horrid pra&ice, but whether, 
by their long intercourfe with the Romans, as Strabo feems to fay, or, 
by the edi& of Auguftus, as Suetonius fays, we need not endeavour to 
afcertain.—Strabo fays, iv. p. 136, that the Romans, by their inter¬ 
courfe with the Gauls, induced them to relinquith fuch modes af facri- 
fieing as were contrary to thofe which they themfclves followed-— xxt rsruv 
o’ eTrxucrxv xvras P ufAztot, xxt ruv xanx Qvcnxs x.<zi ^xvruxs vttsvxvtius rots 7 rap 
XjjilV V0{Jil(X0tS .—- And, in the fequel, he proceeds to point out what thofe 
rites peculiar to the Gauls vreie—for, fays he, they ufed to facrifice 
4 man, and to divine from the palpitations of the vi&im —xvOpcjTrov yxp 

xxrsiT7rcia(jt.svav Trxtaxvres us vujtov txxyxtpx, Bfxxvrtvovro ex rts a<px$xar(cti, eQvov 

& ex xnv SpvtiZv xxt x. r. x.—Now if the Gauls were, by their long in¬ 
tercourfe with the Romans, in a manner humanized, early in the reign 
of Tiberius, if not before, why fhould we not prefume, on the autho¬ 
rity of the fame writer, immediately preceding, that aimofl: all the 
inhabitants of Britain were alfo, as early, humanized ?—For, of that 
ifland, he fays—“ Now indeed fome of the princes of that ifland, by 
“ embaflies and fubmiflions, feek the favor of Ccefar, and make coftly 
** prefents to the Capitol, and have rendered almoft the whole ifland 

A a a 2 


I 


308 

. \ 

The Senate , u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, $$c. 

<e dependent on the Romans.fo that they need not maintain 

any great force there. Nwr /aevto/ tZjv (tvvxs-wv rives ruv xvroQi Tsptx^tvatac 

Y.0U Qzpx'rrttxis xxvxaxtvxa^ivoi ryv TTpos Yixia-xpx rov IzGxrov $>i\ixv } xrx9yi/.xrx re 
xveQvxxv tv ru Y^xnuruXiu, xxi oottixv cr^Ecbv ^xptxxtvxxxv rots Yupxiois oXyv ryv 
vyaov .a> 5 "£ piy^ev <$tfv (ppvpxs rys vyau. 

By the evidence of Strabo and Suetonius, as well as by the preced¬ 
ing of Tacitus and Paterculus, it appears to be far from clear that 
this decree was palled in the reign of Tiberius. 

Let us then, in order to obtain more fatisfa&ion on this point, pro¬ 
ceed to enquire in what year of Tiberius this moft remarkable decree 
could have been palled.-f-And in order to do it the more effe&ually 
let us make the enquiry firft on the fuppolition that the Senate alone, 

/ -- . JyT' A l , 

without the concurrence of Tiberius, did it—and, fecondly, on the 
fuppoiition that Tiberius ordered it to be palfed or confented to the 
palling of it. 

• * » 

If Pliny meant that the Senate, of their own accord, put a Hop to 
this barbarous practice, he mull have meant that they did it after 
Strabo wrote, for, at that time, it feems, by what he fays, iii. p. 106, 
the Lulitanians continued, as ufual, to immolate men. Now Strabo 
wrote, as it is fuppofed, about the year 772—when, as Tacitus fays, 
(though, as we have proved, erroneoufly) the Senate expelled the Jews 
and Egyptians from Rome and Italy for exerciling their profane rites. 
At which time, we may fuppofe, this barbarous pra&ice had not been 
prohibited. Did they then do it in the year 775 ?—In that year, fays 
Tacitus, iii. 60, Tiberius conceded to them the privilege of hearing 
the populates or complaints of the provinces, and they, immediately, 
made it their bulinefs to enquire into the abufes of the afyla, and to 
infpeft the modes of religion followed by their allies, but that they 
then fcrutinized any of the rites of the Druids, or interdi&ed the prac- 







309 

The Senate , u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews , fyc. 

lice of offering human facrifices, he does not fay.—Befides, Tacitus 
fays, iii. 65, that, in the fame year, the Senate was all fubmifiion to 
the will of Tiberius—Ceterum tempora ilia adeo infe&a et adulatione 
fordida fuere, ut non modo primores civitatis, quibus claritudo fua ob- 
fequiis protegenda erat; fed omnes confulares, magna pars eorum qui 
prastura fun&i multique etiam pedarii fenatores certatim exfurgerent, 
focdaque et nimia cenferent.—Again, if the Senate put an end to this 
inhuman praCtice, before the year 777, why did Tacitus complain, 
iv. 32, that he had nothing of importance to write about?—Efpecially 
if, as Pliny fays, nobody can conceive how much credit the Romans 
deferved for doing it, why fhould Tacitus have thought it not worth 

the recording ?—Was the fuppreffion of fo prodigious, fo horrid a 

* . 

fuperflition, fo generally received and fo long pra&ifed, of Iefs im¬ 
portance than the prohibition of immediate executions, or of the 
innocent fuperflition pra&ifed by the Jews and Egyptians, or than 
that of the abufe of the Grecian afyla?—Laflly, was it done before 
the year 783?—In that year Paterculus, we know, finifhed his hiflory, 
and concluded it with an eulogium on Tiberius and Sejanus, but 
though he fays what has been by the conductors of one of our prin¬ 
cipal feminaries for claflic education pronounced adulatory, yet he, 
we find, fays nothing of this mod humane decree. In fhort, if the 
Senate did not do it when the facred rites of other nations were, as 
Seneca fays, difeufied, we know not when they did it, or, if they did 
it not when the execrable fuperflition was reprefied, we cannot con¬ 
ceive when they did it. And yet we cannot think that it was done at 
either of thofe times—for, at the former time, fays Seneca, epift. 108, 
abftinence from certain forts of animal (obferve, but not human) 
food was confidered as the chief argument of fuperflition—and, at 
the latter, the fuperflition blazed forth again and overcame every 
thing. 


/ 



310 


The Senate , u. c . 783, expelled believers as Jews , Sfc. 

Let us now proceed to enquire when this decree could have been 
palled, on the fuppofition that Tiberius himfelf ordered it to be palled 
or confented to the palling of it. 

If it was palled by his order or confent, it feems to have been palled 
before the difagreement between him and the Senate took place, about 
which time, fays Tacitus, v. 3, his domination began to be excellivc 
and arbitrary*—that is, before he became fo very cruel, and fo very 
carelefs about the worlhip of the Gods, and the interefts of the Hate, 
and before he went to Capreae to conceal his cruelty—and before he 
began the praflice of illuing edi£ls, to the deflru&ion of innocent per- 
fons—and before he began to be cruel, or, to make others the agents 
of his cruelty—that is, before he employed Sejanus as his prime 
minilter, or before the year 776—or, laltly, (if as Tacitus feems to 
fay, i. 72, 73, he, in the year 768, introduced the gravilfimum exi- 
tium into Rome, and, in that year, was, by anonymous authors, faty- 
rized for his cruelty,) it may be, even, before that year—or, before 
Strabo wrote. 

^ \ 

We have now been as attentive to this fubje£l as can be expe&ed, 

and we cannot find the leaft encouragement to think that this decree 
was palled in the reign of Tiberius—-we alfo cannot perceive that any 
other author was aware of it, and we, on the contrary, obferve that 
even V. Maximus, who wrote on religious and moral fubjefls onlv, 
and dedicated his work to Tiberius, fays nothing of this decree—and 
this is the more obfervable as he propofes, v. 1, in the firfl place, to 
relate the moll humane and the moll clement a£ls of the Senate— 
Ante omnia autem humanilfima et clementiflima fenatus a£la referam 
and as he, in ix. 2, (which chapter is on cruelty) fays nothing of this 
barbarous pra£lice, though he concludes it with this moll remarkable 

* C»terum ex eo prasrupta jam et urgens domiaatio. 


The Senate , u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews , 

fentence—Sicut illi Barbari, quos ferunt ma&atarum pecudum intef- 
tinis, et vifceribus egeltis, homines inferere, ita ut capitibus tantum- 
modo emineant, atque ut diutius poenae fufficiant, cibo et potione in- 
felicem fpiritum prorogare: donee intus putrefa&i, laniati fint anima- 
libus, quae tabidis corporibus innafei folent. Queramur nunc cum 
natura rerum, quod nos multis et afperis adverfae valetudinis incom- 
modis obnoxios efie voluerit habitumque cceledis roboris human® 
condition! denegatum molefte feramus, cum tot cruciatus fibimet ipfa 
mortalitas impulfu crudelitatis excogitaverit. 

Now as we find that Maximus, on the one hand, profefies to relate, 
in the fird place, all the moil humane decrees of the Senate, and yet 
takes not the lead notice of this, the mod humane of all others—and, 
as we alfo find, that he, on the other hand, has, in the chapter in 
which he treats of cruelty, omitted to notice the practice of immo¬ 
lating men, thofe two difeoveries may, with the help of the foregoing 
difeoveries, help to convince us that the practice of offering human 
facrifices is not likely to have been continued in the days of Tiberius. 

But Pliny, it feems, would not only have us to believe that it was, 
in the reign of Tiberius, a common practice to offer fuch facrifices—• 
but, if we underdand him rightly, he would alfo have us to believe 
that it was as common a pra&ice, at the fame time, to feed on the fiefh 
of fuch vi&ims. The exidence of which practice, in the reign of Tibe¬ 
rius, is, we find, alfo denied by Strabo, for he tells us, iv. p. ! 39 — 
“ Of the people of Ireland I have nothing certain to fay, but that they 
“ are more uncivilized than the Britains, being both cannibals and 
44 gluttons.—This, I find, is /aid of them, but by no credible witnejfts 

Uspi vs (lEPNH) eScr Xe V l ’ v oti, ayptuTEpoi run Bptrrxvur 

inrapj^WTin ot KxrotKHnTES xvrvn t aLnOpwTTotyayoi te outes y.at f noKv(pxyoi k. t, A,—* 
K an rxvrat ttTu KEyoy.tr uf vk e^ortes x^ioTTtffSS yxprvpxt. 



312 

The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, §c. 

I* I ' X 

Now as Pliny appears to have given fo queftionable an account of 
the magic fa£Hon, and to have aflerted, of both, that they were abo¬ 
lished, in the reign of Tiberius, as having been obnoxious to the Senate 
by following the barbarous practice of offering up human vidlims and 
feafling on the flefh of thofe victims.—And, as we find, by the evi¬ 
dence of feveral hiftorians, (two or three of whom were cotemporaries 
with Pliny) that his affertion was not true—why fhould we not fuf- 
pe£t that it is very likely that he may have had fome covert meaning 
-—especially as, we find, mention made in feveral authors of the early 
discontinuance of this horrid pra&ice.—Suetonius, we find, who takes 
not the leafl notice of the praife which Pliny fays the Romans, in the 
reign of Tiberius, acquired for having abolifhed it, aflerts, in his life of 
Claudius, v. 25, that the Roman citizens were prohibited by Auguftus 

from following the rites of the Druids, and that Claudius entirely 

% 

abolifhed that fuperflition—Druidarum religionem apud Gallos dine 
immanitatis, et tantum civibus fub Auguflo interdi&am, penitus abo- 
levit.—This teflimony of Suetonius is, we find, Supported by that of 
Pomponius Mela, who fays, that though the practice had then been 
abolifhed, yet the vefliges flill remained, excepting that they ab- 
ftained from offering up human vi&ims.—Apud Anthropophagos ip- 
fie etiam epulae vifceribus humanis apparantur. Pomponius Mela, 
1 . ii. c. 1, p. 27.—Manent veftigia feritatis jam abolitae, atque ut ab 
ultimis casdibus temperant, ita nihilominus, ubi devotos admovere, 
delibant.—Habent tamen et facundiam fuam, magiflrofque Sapiential 
Druidas, 1 . ii. 2, p. 49.—And the evidence of Petronius Arbiter, in 
the end of his Satyricon, will, if attended to, be found to be pretty 
nearly of the fame tendency.—He there humoroufly reprefents Eu- 

molpus as propofing, at his death, to leave the inhabitants of Croton 

* 1 * 

a legacy, on condition that they fhould cut his boSy in pieces and 
eat it in public—and, as obferving, by way of lulling any qualms 


\ 


I 


313 

The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, &;c. 

i 

of conference they might have at the idea, that, in fome countries, 
it was ftill a practice (not, obferve, to immolate a man and to feaH: 
on his remains, but) for the friends of a deceafed perfon to devour 
him—and, as inftancing, not the Druids of any country, but the 
people of Saguntum, when beheged by Hannibal, and thofe of Peta- 
vium, and the mothers of Numantia, when taken by Scipio—a plain 
proof that he could not adduce any recent inflance of the practice.— 
The people of Croton, continues Petronius, perceiving that Eumolpus 
only meant to laugh at them, Ihortly after facrificed him—and how 
does he fay they did it ?—fcil—as the people of Marfeilles ufed to do 
formerly. And how was that ?—It was, it feems, as little underftood 
by the people of Croton, in thofe early days, as by any of us, for he 
immediately proceeds to explain it—they fed him a year at the public 
expence, and then led him through the town, attired like any other 
vi£Hm, and then loading him with curfes, praecipitated him from a 
rock.—Another plain proof that the pra&ice of immolating men was 
very little known when Petronius wrote—that is, not improbably, in 
the days of Tiberius. 

That Petronius Arbiter wrote his Satyricon in the reign of Tiberius 
appears from his often calling the then emperor Agamemnon, by which 
name Tiberius was, as Dion fays, 1 . 59, p. 654, D., called by Antonia 
—and, that he wrote after the year 775, appears from the flory which 
he relates of the miraculous mender of broken glafs, for Dion, who 
has alfo related the fame ftory, 1 . 57, p. 613, E., places the perform¬ 
ance of that wonder in the year 775—that he wrote after the conful- 
fhip of the twins—that is, after the year 782, appears from that epic 
poem which, he fays, Eumolpus made on the civil war, for, in that 
poem, he fays— 

Quid tam parva queror: Gemino cum confute, Magnus Ille, &c. 


Ebb 




314 

The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, 8gc. 

Soon after Eumolpus had written this pigmy poem* he entered 
Croton, where he, a few days after, made his will, in w^ich he gave 
the people of that city all his effects, on condition that they would 
eat his flefh. 

But though Petronius feems to deny that it was in the reign of Tibe¬ 
rius the practice of the Romans to eat human flefh, yet he, we And, 
reprefents Eumolpus as fpeaking, in the fame poem, of the applaufe 

*’• y ✓ 

which a perfon who drank human blood received from the Romans. 

Ut bibat humanum, populo plaudente, cruorem. 

But what could Eumolpus have meant by this poem and the feveral 
circumftances which he introduces in the courfe of it?—On what oc- 
cafion was it written ? 

/ . 

He, we find, prefaces it with this remark—that whoever undertakes 
to write a poem, on the great fubjeft of the civil war, mult, unlefs he was 
pofiefied of much literature, neceflarily fink under the burden. For, 
fubjoins he, the occurrences of it had better be recorded by an hifto- 
rian than by a poet. But, continues he, a free fpirit is to be preci¬ 
pitated through intricate windings, and the miniftration of the Gods, 
and a fabulous torture of fentences, fo that it may rather appear the 
prediction (vaticination) of phrenfy, than the faith of a religious ora¬ 
tion attefied by witnefles. 

' * ■ \ * .* ■' * ' \ ■ .. 

Ecce, belli civilis ingens opus quifquis attigerit, nifi plenus litteris, 
fub onere labetur. Non enim res gefbe verfibus comprehendendse 
funt quod longe melius Hiftorici faciunt; fed per ambages, Deorum- 
que minifteria, et fabulofum fententiarum tormentum prcecipitandus 
eft liber fpiritus, ut potius furentis animi Vaticinatio apparent, quam 
religiofae orationis fub teflibus fides; tanquam fi placet his impetus, 
etiamfi non recepit ultimam manum. 

* it consists of no more than 296 lines. 


i 





315 


2 he Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, &;c* 

But what are fome of the principal features of this poem ?—Let us 
make it our bufinefs to enquire. 

He, we perceive, begins it with obferving that Rome had arrived 
at the fummit of glory, power, and luxury, and, prefently after* he 
tells us, that ftie was, not long after, deprefted to the loweft (late of 
mifery, fo that no efforts of found reafon could make her endeavour 
to raife herfelf. 

Hoc merfam coeno Romam, fomnoque jacentem 
Quae poterant artes fana ratione movere. 

But when, in the days of Petronius, could Rome be faid to be fo 
funk ?—and to be fo afleep ? 

He next introduces Dis or Pluto as complaining to Fors or Fortune 
that his infernal fubje&s had been commanded to expert heaven—- 

Inferni manes ccelura fperare jubentur. 

» , * 

He then introduces Fortune as declaring that (he had done every 
thing for Rome, and, that the fame Deity who had, at firft, raifed 

her up, would now deftroy her: 

_’_ deftruet iftas 

Idem, qui pofuit, moles Deus, et mihi cordi. 

She then, immediately after, afligns the reafon for it: 

Quippe cremare viros, et fanguine pafeere luxura. 

She then foretells what wars were fhortly about to take place. She 
next proceeds to advife Pluto to throw open his parched domains, and 
to receive frefh fouls, and, not only fo, but to get, inftead of a boat, 

a fleet to tranfport them. 

_ Vix navita Porthmeus, 

Sufficiet fimulachra virum traducerc cymba 

/ - 

Clafle opus eft. 


Bb b 2 






I 


/ / 

316 

The Senate , u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews , fyc. 

Laftly, the adds, that the whole world is about to be fent acrofs 
the Styx by thofe proceedings. 

i 

Scarce, fays the poet, was the conference between thofe two ima¬ 
ginary Dieties ended, when all the other Gods, of the fame clafs, bore 
teftimony to the truth of it. 

Continuo clades hominum venturaque damna 
Aufpiciis patuere Deum; namque ore cruento 
Deformes Titan vultus caligine texit. 

Civiles acies jam turn fpirare putares. 

t _ i 

Having fpoken of the moil flourifhing ftate of Rome and her fubfe- 
quent downfall, and given this terrific account of the conference be¬ 
tween Fortune and Pluto, and obferved that their determination was 
aflented to by the reft of the Gods, he, in the end of the firft half of 
his poem, prefents us with three or four moft unexpected and feem- 
ingly moft unconnected images—for firft, he fays, that a torch, ac¬ 
companied by new ftars, was the leader of this conflagration. 

Fax ftellis comita^a novis incendia ducit. 

And then he fays that Jupiter defeended fuddenly in a fhower, not 
of gold, as formerly, but of blood. 

Sanguineoque repens defeendit Jupiter imbre. 

Next he fays, that fome anonymous God, in a fhort time, unfolded 
thofe tokens. 

Haec oftenta brevi folvit Deus. - — ■ 

And, laftly, he, moft abruptly, introduces Caefar as, without delay, 
and actuated by a love of vengeance, throwing away the Gallic arms, 
and, ftrange to fay, as taking up civil arms. 

_ ___ Exuit omnes 

Quippe moras Caefar, vindiCtaeque aCtus amore 
Gallica projecit, civilia fuftulit arraa. 




317 


The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, fyc. 

Now of what Caefar does he here fpeak, and what can he have 
meant by faying that he took up civil arms , and, at the time when he 
caft away the Gallic ?—Of whom, but Tiberius, can he be fuppofed 
to have fpoken ?—And if he did mean him what civil war happened 
m his reign but that on account of the introduction of Chriftianity in¬ 
to Rome ? 

i 

And where does he fay Caefar made ufe of thofe civil arms?—fcii 
—on that part of the Alps from whence he could obtain a profped 
of Spain ? 

Haec ubi calcavit Caefar juga mi Hie lato* 

Optavitque locum, fummo de vertice montis 
Hefperice + campos late profpexit. 

On this exalted Ration Caefar poured forth a complaint to Jupiter, 
&c. that he had been driven from his city.% But why, if the fubjeCt 
of this poem be the civil war, and Caefar was driven from his city, 
can he be fuppofed to have taken his Ration on that part of the Alps 
which overlooks Spain?—But at what time of the year did Caefar take 
this exalted Ration ?—fcil—In the depth of winter. And when does 
he appear to have quitted it?—fcil—After the thaw commenced, 

Sed poRquam turmae nimbos fregere ligatos, 

Et pavidus quadrures undarum vincula rupit, 

Incaluere nives, mox flumina montibus altis 

Undabant modo nata; fed haec quoque juRa putares. 

/ . / 4 » 

* Quanta cum quiete hominum, rem perpetui prsecipuique timorcs, sup- 
plcmentum, sine trepidatione delectus providet ?—Paterc. ii. 130. 

i Ubi a bello cum Hispanis , qui a me defecere, otium nactus fuero, &c, 

/ t , • 

Tib. ad Abg. 

+ He afterwards says, p. 130, that Ca?sar fled from Rome. 


318 


The Senate, u. c . 783 , expelled believers as Jews, $$c. 

And whither did Caefar move next ?—Towards Spain ?—Or, did he 
content himfelf with only taking a peep at it ?—He does not fay.— 
This only he fays—that Caefar, before the froft had entirely difap- 
peared, defeended into fome more tillageable country. 

Nondum Caefar erat: fed magnam nixus in haftam 
Iiorrida fecuris frangebat grefiibus arva, 

Qualis, &c. 

And what, does he fay, followed ?—fcil—As foon as it was known 
that he had defeended, Fame flew quickly to aftonifhed Rome. 

Dum Caefar tumidas iratus deprimit arces 
Interea volucer, motis conterrita pennis 
Fama volat, fummique petit juga celfa Palati : 

Atque haec Romano attonite fert omnia figna: 

But why (hould the people of Rome be faid to have been aftonifhed 
at his defeent from the Alps ?—What ftep did they take in confe- 
quence of their aftonifhment ? 

Arma, cruor, caedes, incendia, totaque bella 
Ante oculos volitant: ergo pulfata tumultu 
Pe&ora per dubias feinduntur territa caufas. 

Huic fuga per terras, illi magis unda probatur 
Et patria eft pontus jam tutior: ejl magis arma 
Qui tentata velit: fatifque jubentibus i£tus, 

Quantum quifque timet, tantum fugit. Ocior ipfe, 

Hos inter motus populus, miferabile vifu! 

Quo mens i<fta jubet, deferta ducitur urbe. 

Gaudet Roma fuga, debellatique Quirites 
Rumoris fonitu marentia tefta relinquunt . 

Ille manu trepida natos tenet: ille Penates 
Occultat gremio, deploratumque relinquit 
Limen, et abfentem votis interficit hojlem. 


319 


The Senate, u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews , 8$c. 

Having thus defcribed this general dereliction of Rome, becaufe re¬ 
port had faid that Csfar had defcended from the Alps, he, a few lines 
after proceeds thus— 

Quid tarn parva queror? Gemino cum Confute Magnus 

Hie tremor Ponti, faevi quoque terror Hydafpis, 

* 

. Et piratarum fcopulus: modo quem ter ovantem 
Jupiter horruerat, quem fraCto gurgite Pontus, 

Et veneratus erat fubmifia Bofphorus unda, 

Proh Pudor ! Imperii deferto nomine fugit, 

Ignayaque fuga Romam famamque relinquit , 

(Jt fortuna levis! Magni quoque terga videres. 

And can he have meant to affirm this of the fame Casfar, who had, 
in the depth of winter, afcended the Alps, and thence taken a peep 
at Spain ?—And wliofe reported defcent had caufed fuch a panic at 
Rome, and fo total a defertion of that city ?—If he does, what can he 
have meant by the lines immediately following?—viz— 

Ergo tanta lues Divum quoque numina vidit; 

Confenfitque fug<e coeli timor. Ecce per orbem 

i 

Mit'n turba Dam , terras exofa furentes 
Deferit, atque hominum damnatum avertitur agmen. 

And what by thofe again immediately following— 

Pax prima ante alias, niveos pulfata lacertos 
Abfcondit olea vinCtum caput, atque reliCto 

Orbe fugax Ditis petit implacabile regnum. 

_ \ 

Huic comes it fubmiffa Files et crine foluto 
Juflitia, ac marens lacera Concordia [rnlla. 

And, to crown the whole, he, a few lines after, fays, that there was 
as much dilTenfion among the Gods as among the Romans, 


I 


3^0 

The Senate, u. c . 783 , excelled believers as Jews , 

Sentit terra Deos, mutataque fidcra pond us 
Quaefivere fuum: namque omnis Regia coeli 
In partes didu&a ruit. 

The evidence of thofe three writers then feems to prove that the 
practice of immolating human victims feems to have been difeon- 
tinued, by Roman citizens, in the reign of Auguftus, and every where 
elfe, foon after, if not early in the reign of Tiberius. 

Now what fhould hinder us from fufpe&ing that the fuppreflion of 
thofe druidical rites, here mentioned by Pliny, may have been no 
other than the repreflion of the execrable fuperftition of Chriftians 
mentioned by Tacitus?—Or the expulfion of the fimilia fe&antes, 
mentioned by Suetonius 3 —Or of the wav to IhSximv, mentioned by 
Jofeplius ?—And that it may have been voted when the facred rites of 
other nations were, as Seneca fays, difeufted?—And that it may have 
been, as he alfo fays, enforced by the rage of accufers ?—Has not 
Pliny himfelf, by obferving that a fort of phyficians were expelled 
with them, afforded us fomething like a further reafon for cherifhing 
this fufpicion ?—What could he have meant by faying that a fort of 
phyficians were expelled with them ?—Were the Druids too phy¬ 
ficians?—Were not the elders of the church a fort of phyficians—at 

i 

leaft, were they not required to pray for the lick ?—What elfe could 
he have meant by the latter part of the title prefixed to this chapter 
—de origine reliquae ex animalibus medicinae. 

The Chriftians then feem, by the evidence of Pliny, to have been 
expelled from Rome, by the Senate, and for what offence, unlefs it 
was for feafting on the body and blood of Chrift, as conducive to eter¬ 
nal life—and, for praying for the fick members of the church?—Are 
w r e not informed by feveral of the firft champions for chriftianity that 
the eaily Chriftians labored under the imputation of bfeing cannibals?’ 


/ 


The Senate , u. c. 783 , expelled believers as Jews, %c. 

Befides the teftimony of Athenagoras, on this point, already adduced, 
that of Juftyn Martyr, both before a roman emperor and an epheftan 
Jew, and that of Theophilus, the patriarch of Antioch, which he pro¬ 
duced againft the calumniators of Chriftians, might be appealed to,— 
The former afked the roman Senate —ns yap fixations v> axpxms *as 

xvQpumvuv crxpxuv Gopxv xyxQov yyyfxtos Svvxito av Oxvarov xanafyaQat, onus ruv 

ovry ayxQuv rspriQy j— and of I rypho he, in the firft place, demanded 
whether he really believed that the Chriftians feafted on human flefh 

—r«ro tr<v o \iyu, fx-n xai vfxas ntm^tvxxre nept nixuv, on £>? ta-Qioptv xyQpunus, 
xxi fJLtrx rw ttXxnirnv xnoarQtvnvovrts ms \v%vtss, xQicrfxois wS tens ffxvX/o/x£^<z 3 *—- 

and the latter fays, 1 . iii, of the Syrian adverfaries of chriftianity, that 
they entertained the fame ridiculous notion —Qxawruv us xoims xnxvruv 

aerxs rxs yvvxTxxs v)(j.uv t xxi Siatyopu £v>ovrxs, tn fxs> xxi rxis i^ixt? xdsXtyats 
cvfjLfxiyvvxQxi, xxi to xQturxro* xai ufAorxrov, nxcruv axpxuv x>9puntvuv s^xirrta-- 
6xi r^ixs. 

Having now difeovered, by the evidence of an Apoftolic Chriftian 

writer, that great oppofttion appears to have been made to the firft 

/ 

preaching of the gofpel at Rome foon after the afeenfion of our Lord, 
both by jewifh libertines and by prejudiced heathens—and by that of 
Tiberius, that the Senate refufed to admit the worfhip of our Lord, and, 
that he threatened death to the accufers of Chriftians—and, by that 
of a cotemporary roman writer, that the Chriftians of Rome appear 
to have been expelled from that city in the reign of Tiberius, and for 
worfhipping Chrift.—Let us next proceed to enquire what other early 
Chriftian writers have faid of their expulfion by the Senate, and of 
their prote£lion by Tiberius. 


* See Miautius Felix in Octavio, 







The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, $$c. 

Tertullian, who, as FAifebius fays, E. H. ii. 2, was a man moil learn¬ 
ed in the roman laws, and otherwife famous, particularly for his 
knowledge of roman concerns, fays, in the apology which he deliver¬ 
ed to the emperor Severus, chapter 5—“ There was an ancient flatute 
“ that no God fhould be confecrated by the king, unlefs the Senate 

“ confented to it. Marcus dEmilius.Tiberius therefore, in 

whofe reign the name of Chiftians was firfl known in the world, on 
“ a report being made to him, from Paleftine, of this divinity, refer- 
red it to the Senate, as if he had a right to vote firft on the occa- 
“ fion: but the Senate, not approving it, reje&ed the propofal. Caefar, 
“ however, continued of the fame perfuafion, and threatened fiericu- 
“ lum to the accufers of Chriftians.”—Vetus erat decretum, ne qui 
Deus ab imperatore confecraretur, nifi a Senatu probatus. Scil. M. 
yEmilius de Deo propitius efle debebit. Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore 
nomen chriftianorum in feculum introivit, annunciata fibi ex Syria 
Pala?eflina qua illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelarunt, detulit ad 
Senatum cum pnerogativa fuffragii fui. Senatus, quia non ipfe proba- 
verat, refpuit. Cxfar in fententia manlit, comminatus periculum aq- 
cufatoribus chriftianorum. 

This, Tertullian aflerted at Rome, before the then emperor, in the 

1 

courfe of the fecond century, in defence of the faith of Chriftians— 
and, afterwards recorded it. And, we find, it is ahnoft a tranfeript 
of the letter of Tiberius to Abgarus. The only thing in which it 
differs from that letter is this, that he ufes the word danger, whereas 
Tiberius ufes the word death * 


Let us hear what Eufebius and Jerom fay of this matter: 


Eufebius, 
his E. hift. ii. 


we find, in two of his works—viz—his chronology and 
2, mentions this interference of Tiberius in behalf of ac- 


* For this difference we hope to account in the next two chapter?. 


v 



323 


The Senate , u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews , 

cufed Chriflians, and, in each work, as the report of Tertullian, in 
each too as unobjectionable. But though he has, in each work, ac¬ 
knowledged that he derived his information from Tertullian, it is ob- 
fervable, that he, in each work, fubftitutes the word Qxv&rov for peri- 
culum. In his chronology (moft of which, it may be right to obferve, 
he borrowed from Africanus, who was a cotemporary with Tertullian) 
he has mentioned the year in which he fuppofes this event took place 
—viz—xxii. of Tiberius. In his hiftory he devotes a chapter to the 
relation of this moft remarkable occurrence. But though he has, in 
the laft chapter of the firft book, given us copies of the letters that 
palled between Abgarus and our Lord, yet, it is not a little obfervable, 
that he does not fay any thing of thofe letters which palled between 
Abgarus and Tiberius, and which, Mofes Chorenenfis informs us, were 
depolited in the fame archives. 

Jerom alfo mentions this inierpolition of Tiberius in behalf of 

N. 

Chriflians, and on the authority of Tertullian, in his chronology.— 
And of that work, he, in his epift. to Vincentius and Gallienus, fays, 
lie partly tranflated, partly compofed. What he compofed, he adds, 
is moftly in the roman hiftory. Now in that chronology he not only 
fays, with Eufebius, that the punifhment which Tiberius threatened 
was death—he alfo adds a circumftance or two omitted both by Ter¬ 
tullian and Eufebius, and, one, at leaft, of a moft remarkable import, 
and which may fairly be fuppofed to have provoked the emperor’s 
threat—viz—that the Senate decreed that all Chriflians fhould be ex¬ 
pelled from Rome. Indeed Jerom, both in his former and latter book, 
has expreflly afligned this as the reafon. For he fays in each—Verum 
quum ex confulto Patrum Chriftianos eliminari Urbe placuiftet, 3 ibe- 
iius per ediClum accufatoribus chriftianorum comminatus eftmortem- 

C c c 2 





N 


324 

✓ ' * 

w * 

( 

The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, fyc. 

Now can it be fuppofed that Jerom would not only have faid, with 
Eufebius, that death was the punifhment threatened by Tiberius—but 
have alfo added, that the Senate firft decreed that all Chriftians fhould 
depart from Rome—and that the emperor iflued another decree 
“ edidtum”—and have faid it as a thing never contradidted, and in 
latin too, if he had not, on enquiry, found that it was really for— 
Thefe added circumftances are alone enough to prove that Jerom did 
not copy his account of this tranfadtion from Eufebius. But a much 
ftronger proof of it may be obtained by comparing their reports with 
each other. Eufebius, in his E. H., fays —o otvros Th\aros T iQtpiu ra 

xxtcc roy lurvpx xvayocyuv kxi th Xptrixvuv So^fxxros, exivucrtv us tpurx TTifius, 
T iQtpios Tt irpos rv)v (jvyx.Xr.Tov iKotvoXoyr,irxro mepi tvs us Xpi?o> % nrcvs—Tvs fte 
‘ffu6o(jLtwr i xWx piupixv »j<y«/u,«yy is to xvpvyixx tu sxvpu, o xvtos Qxvxtov e^v^htxt* 
xxtx ruv ^iUKTuv Tuv Xpi^ixvuv, us TtprvWtxvos ifopu .— And Jerom, in his 
L. P., fays—Pilato de Chriftianorum dogmatc ad Tiberium referente 
Tiberius retulit ad Senatum, ut inter cetera facra reciperetur—Verum, 

i 

&c.—exadtly as we quoted before. 

This oppolite behaviour then of the roman Senate, and of Tiberius, 
with regard to believers, appears to have been univerfally believed by 
Chriftians in very early days—and moreover to have been by no one 
contradidted. No appeal was ever made to the prefumed lilence of 
roman or jewilh hiftorians concerning it. And it appears, that it 
would have been but to little ufe to make fuch appeal, for the wri¬ 
tings of Philo and Jofephus, of Suetonius and Tacitus, when rightly 
underftood, are alone fufficient to eftablilh the credibility of the fadt, 
notwithflanding all their care to avoid even the appearance of having 
noticed it, fo prevaricating are the accounts which they have given of 
what happened in the latter part of the reign of Tiberius. 

Jerom, we perceive, fays, that .the Chrillians only were ordered to 
quit Rome—that is, furely, believing Jews and believing Romans.— 



The Senate , u . c. 783, expelled believers as Jews , 

And the jewilh and roman writers fay that the Jews alone, or, as Jofe- 
phus fays—«■<*> ro ia&ac/Ko*—were, two or three years after Chrift had 
been preached in that city, expelled. Were then all the Jews, believers 
and unbelievers, and all the roman converts to the faith, expelled 
about the fame time ?—If fo, muft not Rome have been almofl left 
defolate ?—But by whom were they expelled ?—If the Jews were, as 
Philo and the Evangelifts fay, very much attached to Ccefar—that is, 
to 1 iberius, and Tiberius was, as Chriftian writers fay, the patron of 
Chriftians, in fpite too of the Senate, is it at all likely that he would 
have expelled either of them?—Unlefs they difagreed fo much that it 
was abfolutely neceftary?—Did they then difagree about any religious 
point fo much as to render the interference of Tiberius neceflary ? 

If the Senate would not admit Chrift to be God, and gave this 
reafon for their refufal—becaufe Tiberius had previoufly acknow¬ 
ledged him to be fo, was it not an encouragement for unbelievers, 
efpecially Jews, to accufe believers of worfhipping an unlawful Deity? 
And if the Senate encouraged fuch accufers may they not have expel- 
led Chriftians as foon as they difcovered them to be fuch ?—That is, 
merely for deifying Chrift ?—And may not this have provoked Tibe¬ 
rius to publifh his edi£t threatening periculum, or death, to the accu¬ 
fers of Chriftians?—But why, if the Senate did not put Chriftians to 
death, Ihould Tiberius have threatened to put their accufers to death ? 
That the Senate did not punifti fuch offenders with death, we know, 
but though the Senate may not have done it, yet why may not the 
Tews be fuppofed to have ftoned jewifh believers, if not their pro- 
ielytes, as blafphemers of God ?—Or, rather to have fent fuch to 
Jerufalem to be tried and ftoned for that offence ?—If, as Luke fays, 

4 

the Sanhedrin was permitted to fend to ftrange cities for Chriftians, in 
order to try them for blafphemy, and to {lone them, why may they 



326 


I 


/ 


The Senate, u. c. 783, expelled believers as Jews, 

not have alfo fent to Rome for fuch offenders?—And if the Sanhedrin 

t 

did claim this privilege why may not Tiberius, on that account, have 

/ 

thought proper to threaten death to Jews for putting jewilh believers 
to death as blafphemers of God ?—And why may not this ferve to 
explain the reafon of the million of the 4,000 jewilh libertines to Sar¬ 
dinia?—This, at lead, we know, that the perfection of blafphemers, 
by Paul, laded but a very Ihort time, and then for ever ceafed, but 
why, we know not. 


\ 



t 



/ 




/ 





/ 





- 



( 


Who were accusers?—When did they begin to accuse ?— 
How long did they continue their practice?—By whom 
were they encouraged?—By whom, and when, were they 
suppressed? 

/ 

•« 

Who were the accused?—Of what were they accused ?—* 
Before whom were they accused?—To what punishment 
were they liable? 

E read in the work of no writer but in thofe of the two 
Senecas, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dion, of accufers being permitted 
to difturb the peace of a city for any coniiderable length of time, with¬ 
out being informed why they were permitted to do it. Tliofe writers 
tell us that, in the reign of Tiberius, and in that only, and in a no 
inconliderable part of it, (that is, as Tacitus feems to fay, iv. 32, 33, 
from the 10th year of his reign—or, rather, as he fays, iv. 69, from 
the 14th, till, as Dion fays, 58, 631, D., a little after the death of 
Sejanus—or, perhaps, as Dion again fays, 58, 634, E., till the 19th 
-ufor then, he there fays, Tiberius, in one day, put all the principal 
accufers to death,) the calamities which this fet of Taraxipoudcs in- 














328 


Accusers who, $c. ?—Accused who, 8$c. ? 

fli£led on the people of Rome were worfe than thofe occafioned by 
any civil war. Now as Tiberius was, during all that period, reliding 
at Caprese, and as he is faid, by one, to have been then the worfe for 
age, and by others, to have been, during the firffc three or four years 
of it, wafted with grief, and again, by others, to have religned the 
management of public affairs to Sejanus, by whom he was, as Dion 
fays, 58, p. 623, B., kept in ignorance of every thing done at Rome, 
and as he is faid, by Dion, to have, at laft, put all the principal ac- 
cufers to death, in one day, why may we not, all this confidered, fup- 
pofe that thofe accufers were encouraged, not by Tiberius, but by 
Sejanus ?—Does not Seneca fen. appear to give us reafon to think fo, 
by faying, Confol ad Mar. c. 22, that Sejanus was the onfetter of 

1 

them?—And docs not Dion too appear to give us ftiil greater reafon 
to think fo, by fpeaking, 58, p. 631, C., of the keennefs with which 
Tiberius, after the death of Sejanus, profecuted Sejanic accufations?— 
Of this we, however, may be fure, that accufers could not, during 
the refidence of Tiberius at Capreae, have difturbed the peace of Rome 
fo very much, and, fo long, unlefs they had been permitted fo to do, 
either by Sejanus, or, by the Senate; by Sejanus principally no doubt, 
as we are informed by Dion, 58, p. 622, B., that the Senate were fo 
completely fubfervient to him as to worfhip him.—Now if thofe ac¬ 
cufers were encouraged by Sejanus, and by the Senate, may they not, 
as Sejanus is, by feveral writers, faid to have entered into a confpiracy, 
with moft of the Senate, againft his fovereign, be fuppofed to have 
been encouraged to carry on fome defign hoftile to the fovereignty of 
Tiberius—efpecially, as Tiberius is faid, both by Tacitus, iv. 71, 74, 
vi. 2, and by Dion, 1. 58, p. 627, A., 630, A., to have been afraid, 
during all the time thofe accufers were permitted to prowl, of appear¬ 
ing at Rome, and in the Senate?—Of this, however, we hope to be 
able to inform ourfelves as we proceed. 


329 


Accusers %vho , 8$c. ?—Accused who, 8$c. ? 

Of all cotemporary writers, it is not a little remarkable, that the 
two Senecas only take notice of ihofe accufers, and their extreme 
maleficence. All the reft—viz—Paterculus, V. Maximus, Agrippa, 
Philo, and Clemens of Rome are entirely filent on the fubjedt. Indeed 
three of thofe writers—viz—V. Maximus, Agrippa, and Philo feem, 
as we fhall come to fee prefently, not to have been aware that the 
peace of Rome was, at any time in the reign of Tiberius, efpecialiy 
from the 14th to the 18th, fo much difturbed. And though the 
other two feem to have acknowledged, as well as the two Senecas, 
that it was, by fome means, difturbed—and in the 14th, or before the 
16th—yet they do not fay that it was difturbed by accufers. One of 
thofe two—viz—Clemens, fays, that the difturbance happened in the 
14th, and that Tiberius, from that time, inftead of encouraging ac¬ 
cufers to difturb the peace of any one, ordered the maleficent to be 
fearched for, in order to put them to death, firft at Rome, and after¬ 
wards in every province—Csefar in urbe Roma, et per provincias 
maleficos inquiri juftit ac perimi; ex quibus multi jam perempti funt. 
R. x. 55. And the other—viz—Paterculus, that it ended before the 
end of the 16th.—But let us hear what each of thofe cotemporaries 
lays of the peace of Rome during the reign of Tiberius—and, for the 
purpofe of comparing their feveral reports with that of each other.— 
From Romans, Jews, and Chriftians we may hope to be able to get at. 
fomething like the truth. 

Paterculus fays, ii. 126, where he enumerates the various bleftings 
which the Romans had been enjoying under Tiberius, till the 16th of 
his reign—revocata in forum fides, fubmota e foro feditio , ambitio 
campo, difeordia curia. —And what are we to underhand by all this ? 
When, before the 16th of the reign of Tiberius, had faith been expel- 


D d d 










330 




Accusers who, fyc.?—Accused who, &;c.? 

r 

led from the forum?—And why?—When, before the fame year, had 
any fedition taken place in the forum ?—And why ?—When did the 
difcord in the Senate, here mentioned, happen, and why ?—Did this 
difcord happen at the fame time as the fedition in the forum l — 
Whenever thofe diflentions may have happened, and whatever may 
have been the occafion of them, who, but Tiberius, by the inftrumen- 
t.ality of Sejanus, can, by this writer’s report, have put an end to them? 
After having faid this to Vinicius, the then conful, Paterculus imme¬ 
diately fubjoins—Quando pax lxtior? Diffufa pax Augujia per omnes 
terrarum orbis angulos. And did fueh an univerfal peace fucceed thofe 
diflurbances—and, in the 16 th of Tiberius?—How long did it lafl ? 

V ’. Maximus feems to corroborate this evidence of Paterculus, con¬ 
cerning the peace which took place in the 16th of Tiberius, by what 
he fays, ix. n, where he is fpeaking of the confequenees of the fall 
of Sejanus—Itaque flat pax, valent leges, fincerus privati ac public* 
officii tenor fervatur. 

Agri/ipa , who was intimate with Drufus, the fon of Tiberius, as 
long as he lived, and afterwards lived at Capreae, with Tiberius, fays 
nothing of this vile practice—on the contrary, he, though he was im- 
prifoned by Tiberius, reprefents his government, even to his kinfman 
Caius, when he was afraid to appear in his prefence, as having been 
uniformly beneficial to mankind at large, and to the jews above any 
other people. 

Philo fays, in F. p. 758, F., that Tiberius was ever ready to punifh 
any of his foreign magiflrates for oppreffion. And, Leg. p. 769, B,, 
that he enjoyed, to the end of his reign, fuch a peace as was never 
known before. And though he fays of him, p. 785, F., that he liken¬ 
ed to the accufations of Sejanus againft the Jews of Rome, fo much 
as to confent to the expulfion of them from thence—yet he alfo fays, 


331 


Accusers who, S$c.?—Accused ivlio, S$c.f 

that he, immediately after the fall of his prime minifter, wrote to all 
his foreign praefe&s, commanding them to ufe the Jews, fa few cx- 
cejited) in their feveral departments, kindly. And again, in F. p. 748, 
D., he fays, that the people of Egypt, who were under the more im¬ 
mediate care of the emperor, were during the lafl five or fix years of 
his reign, unufually happy. It was not till the 8th month after the 
death of Tiberius that this profound peace was difturbed, when, as he 
fays, in F. p. 749, F., a certain defcription of people, whom he calls 
Taraxi/iclides, or city plagues, and who feem to have been very like 
thofe accufers about whom we are enquiring, difturbed the peace of 
the Jews of Alexandria, but under what pretence, it is not a little re¬ 
markable, he does not fay. 

Seneca fen. in his Confol. ad Marc. c. 19, (which Confol. it may 
not be amifs to obferve, he wrote three years after the death of her 
father Cremutius Cordus, who, as Tacitus fays, iv. 34, died early 
u. c. 778, and therefore in the beginning of u. c. 781—in the 14th 
of Tiberius, or, a little before the execution of Sabinus—and about a 
year before the death of Li via) fays to her—nulla publica clades nulla 
privata confpicitur—which feems to intimate that, in the beginning of 
the 14th of Tiberius, all things remained in a ftate of tranquillity— 
and, he had before, c. 15, chaffed Tiberius with the greateft of all 
great and moft eminently virtuous men. But Seneca alfo fays, a little 
after, in the fame work, c. 22, what looks a little like a plain contra¬ 
ction of the paffage juft adverted to—viz—that Sejanus ufed to ern 
courage informers againft every body , by feeding them, for his own 
purpofe, with human blood —Subfcriptio, et acerrimi canes, quos illc, 
ut Jibi uni manfuetos, omnibus feros haberet , fanguine humano pafeebat, 
eircumlatrare etiam hominem, et ilium imparatum incifiiunt,*— And, a 


\ 


D d d 2 





332 


Accusers who , S$c. ?—Accused who, fyc. ? 

little after this, he feems to fay, that Sejanus was the original onfetter 
of accufers—Accufatores Sejano au&ore, &c.—Now if Seneca be cor- 
re<d in what he here fays of accufers, does it not feem that Sejanus, 
and not Tiberius, began , u. c. 778, to encourage them? 

Again, in another work of this writer, Contr. Superd., he fays, that 
the ufage of a certain namelefs people whom he rcprefents as the mod 
wicked of all wicked people, had, at a particular time, fo far prevail¬ 
ed, that it had, after having encountered much oppofition, obtained 
reception in all countries—the conquered having been enabled to give 
laws to the conquerors.—“ Cum interim ufque eo fceleratiflimae gentis 
confuetudo convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta fit: vi<di vi<do- 
ribus leges dedere.”—Now to what nation can he, who died a year or 
two before Tiberius, be fuppofed to have alluded ?—Of all nations 
then being, which is the mod likely to have been confidered by him 
as the mod wicked of all others?—And as having had a ufage not 
adopted by any other people ?—We do not read, in the work of any 
roman writer, of any nation which was, in the days of the elder Seneca, 
confidered as being eminently wicked, nor as having any cudom or 
ufage which the red of mankind confidered as being eminently ob- 
je&ionable—and which it wifhed to impofe on the red of the world, 
contrary to their inclination. Does not Philo fay, de vita, M. p. 508, 
C. D., how little regard all the world had for the religious inditutions 
of each other?—Of the difciples of Jefus Chrid, who, when compo- 
fed of various people, were, for a few years, dill called Jews,* and 
afterwards ChridianS—we read, in Tacitus, A. xv. 44, that they were 
univerfally hated for their flagitious practices—that is, as Athenagoras 
and others fay, for their atheifm, their horrid feads, their adulteries, 
and their compotations—and, we alfo read, in the fame paflage of 

* Dion, 1. 37, p. 37. Suetonius, y. 23. 





333 


Accusers who, fyc.?—Accused who, 8$c. ? 

Tacitus, that they had embraced a mofi dcftruttlve fujierjlition , and 
that they, at firft—in praefens—endeavored to obtain admilfion into 
Rome, and were then repulfed, and then—dein—as he fays, i. 73, in 
fpite of all oppofition, eftabliihed themfelves in that city. May not 
Seneca then, by the moil wicked of all nations, have meant Chriftians? 
Does not his fon give us reafon to fuppofe, by what he fays, Ep. 108, 
that he is likely to have meant Chriftians ?—He there fays, that his 
father dififuaded him from abftaining any longer from the ufe of animal 
food, though after a year’s trial, in compliance with a certain fuper- 
ftition, he had found it beneficial to him—this fuperftition, he fays, was 
introduced into Rome, in the reign of Tiberius, and a little before the 
facred rites of other nations were agitated. This fuperftition, fubjoins 
he, my father, though he did not fear the calumny which was attached 
to it, hated as a fpecies of philofophy, and therefore requefted me to 
return to my former mode of living. And does not Seneca, by (peak¬ 
ing of the conqueft of this moft wicked of all people, allude to fome- 
thing befides their fubjugation ?—For what people had not then been 
conquered by the Romans?—And how could Chriftians be faid to have 
been then conquered, unlefs by having been, as Suetonius fays, iii. 36, 
together with the Jews and Egyptians, expelled as fimilar fe&aries?— 
Now if Suetonius did mean that the Jews, Egyptians, and the like 
fedls, were, as being Chriftians, expelled from Rome, then, we find, 
they were, as Tacitus fays, reprefted, or, as Seneca fays, fubdued.— 
And Lipfius, we find, thinks, that Seneca as evidently here means 
Chriftians. Indeed what other clafs of feSaries, befides the Chriftian, 
were faid to have been, of all men, the moft wicked—or, could be faid 
to have had fo much prevalence over the whole world, as to impofe 
on them any obnoxious cuftom? Could the Jews, or any other people, 
be faid to have been, after the year 774, at war with the Romans— 












334 


Accusers who, $$c.?—Accused wliOj 8$c.? 

and could they, or any other people, be faid, after that time, to have 
conquered their conquerors.—Tacitus, vve find, fays, A. xv. 44, with 
regard to the Jews—Sub Tiberio quies. 

The Chriftians then feem to be covertly complained of by Seneca 
the elder, as having been, in the reign of Tiberius, conquered—or, 
as Tacitus fays, of their execrable fuperftition, reprefted—or, as Sue¬ 
tonius fays, expelled from Rome. Now if Chriftians were expelled 
from Rome as Jews, &c. how fhould we fuppofe that any one was 
known to be of that perfuafion but by accufers ? 

Seneca jun . fays, de B. iii. 26, that the rage of accufers among the 
Roman citizens was, at one time in the reign of Tiberius, frequent and 
almoft public—that is, we prefume, common—and, not only frequent 
and public, or common, but even worfe than any civil war—Sub T. C. 
accufandi frequens et paene publica rabies. Excipiebatur ebriorum 
fermo, fimplicitas jocantium.* But in what year of Tiberius this rage 
for accufing commenced—by whom thofe accufers of drunkards and 
jejiers were fet on—whether they accufed them only of words fpoken 
— and, before what tribunal they accufed them, this writer does not 
fay.—But he, we find, fays, and to our no little aftcnifhment, that thofe 
drunkards and jefters were indiferiminately condemned to death for it. 
What! Drunkards condemned to death for uttering a few incoherent 
exprefiions, and by that greateft of all drunkards BiberiusCaldius Mero ! 
Who made Pifo, for his protracted compotations, the praefedt of Syria! 
And an obfeure perfon, for a fimilar feat, a quaeftor, and in preference 
to other noble candidates! And fuch perfons too for only fpeaking ! 
Seneca, iurely, cannot have had the confcience to expeCt us to believe 
this.—And why, as the cuftom of accufing was fo very common, were 

* Who ever heard of the oratorical powers of drunken men—or, of the 
simplicity of jesters? 


335 


Accusers who, §c.? — Accused who , $$c.f 

drunkards and jefters only the objedls of their accufations?—Of this 
rage of accufers he immediately fubjoins an example.—Paul, fays he, 
a praetorian, had a ring with an image of Tiberius in relief, with this 
ring on his finger he happened one day to be dining with a party, in 
which there was one Maro, a notorious accufer.* Paul being intoxi¬ 
cated, was fo imprudent as to put his hand, with the ring on it, to a 
certain neceffary utenhl: which Maro inflantly noticed as an a£t of 
impiety to Tiberius. That Maro did fo the fervant of Paul fufpe&ed, 
and contrived to take the ring from the hand of his matter without 
being perceived by any one, and to keep it till the affair was heard, 
when he denied that his matter had been fo impious, and produced 
the ring as a proof.—Coenabat Paulus praetorius, &c.—This ttory, it 
fhould be obferved, Seneca appears to relate as an inttance of the 
frequency and the publicity of the rage with which accufers worried, 
to trie almoft extirpation of the Roman people, drunkards and jejiers , 
for words by them fpoken. But is it really what he would have us to 
believe it is?—Was Paul accufed of fermonizing when drunk?—Was 
he not, when fjicechlefs , accufed of impiety to Tiberius?—And did not 
his Have inflantly contrive to prove him innocent of this charge ?— 
and, at the expence of proving him infenfibly drunk?—But how 
happened it that he thought of profecuting any one for this offence—■ 
at leaft, after the year 778?—Did the reft of his fort too profecute for 
this offence?—Did they not know that Tiberius had, in that year, pub¬ 
licly, in the Senate, protefted againft the praflice of ere&ing temples 
to any man ?—Did they not know that he had then, by the account 
of Suetonius, iii. 26, forbidden any one to ere£t any ftatue or image 
to himfelf, without his permiffion, which he would never, but on this 
exprefs condition, grant—that it fhould not be confidered as facred, 
but only as ornamental ?—How then could Maro think of bringing a 

* How happened it that Maro, so notorious an accuser, was admitted to be 

of this party? 




Accusers who, $$c.?—Accused who, fyc.? 

charge of fuch a nature againft an infenliblv drunken man, and of 
citing all the company to fupport his evidence?—Were they too igno¬ 
rant of this prohibition ? 

But when does he fay Rome was fo violently agitated by accufers ? 
That it could not have been fo agitated in or before the 16th year of 
Tiberius we are allured by Paterculus and feveral other cotemporary 
writers. And that it could not have been fo much dillurbed by them 
before the nth Tacitus allures us, iv. 32, where he complains that 
nothing worth the attention of an hiftorian had then occurred; — 
that the peace of the city was then not dillurbed—or, at leail, but a 
little—that the face of things appeared unruffled.—Nobis in arto et 
inglorious labor, &c. Immota quippe aut modice laceffita pax, moeftae 
urbis res, et princeps proferendi imperii incuriofus erat. Non tamen 
line ufu fuerit, introfpicere ilia primo afpeftu levia, ex queis magna- 
rum faepe rerum rnotus oriuntur.—In the next chapter—viz—33, he 
indeed fpeaks of continued accufations , &c. And then, in the two next 
chapters, 34, 35, he relates the affair of Cremutius Cordus, (which, 
we have already feen, Seneca, the elder, fpeaks of in his Confol. to 
Marcia, the daughter of Cordus, in the year 781 ; at which time he 
obferved to her that the had not been terrified by the light of any 
calamity private or public.) And then, again, in the next, 36, he 
fays, that the whole year had been fo conllantly occupied in hearing 
accufations that, on the ferine Latinae, the praefeft of the city had been 
obliged to attend to them. In the fame year, fays he, chapter 37, 
Tiberius refufed to be deified; which refufal feems to have put a flop, 
for the prefent, to the praflice of accufers, for, he fays very little of 
their proceedings, during the two following years. And, we find, that 
he fays, iv. 69, that they began, in the 14th year, while Tiberius was 
at Caprea?, to rage again more than ever , and that they caufed, by the 
affair of Sabinus, inconceivably more terror, all over the city, than 


337 


f 


\ 


•Accusers ivlio, 8$c.f—Accused who, fyc.F 


ever.—Non alias magis, &c.—This exceftive rage of the then fet of 
accufers he feems to fay, 71, did not laft long—they were foon fup- 
planted by others—Ni mihi deftinatum foret, fuum quasque in annum 
referre, avebat animus anteire, ftatimque memorare exitus, quos Lati- 
nius et Opfus ceterique flagitii ejus repertores habuere, non modo poft- 
quam C. Caefar rerum potitus eft, fed incolumi Tiberio: qui fcelerum 
miniftros, ut perverti ab aliis nolebat; ita jfterumque fatiatus, et oblatis 
in eciyidem o[ieram recentibus , veteres et praegraves afflixit: verum, &c. 
Indeed Tacitus fays, vi. 30, that Tiberius, in the 19th year of his reign, 
punifhed all accufers.—Ac tamen accufatores, li facultas incideret, 
pcenis afficiebantur.—From thofe few remarks adduced from the iv. 
and vi. books of Tacitus, on this point, it appears pretty clearly that 
the peace of Rome began to be difturbed by accufers, in the nth of 
Tiberius—that in the 12th and 13th it was not much difturbed—that 
in the 14th it was moft outrageouily difturbed—and that in the 19th 
it ceafed to be difturbed. Confequently why (hould we not conclude 
that the rage of accufers, which Seneca jun. mentions as having taken 
place in the reign of Tiberius, and which, he fays, was attended with 
more dreadful effects than any civil war, firft happened in the 14th of 
his reign, and that it continued about two years?—Does not Sueto¬ 
nius, by what he fays, iii. 37, encourage us ftill more to draw this 
conclufton ?—He there fays, that Tiberius moft grievoufly fupprefted 
fome popular tumults—and, that he not only did fo, but that he took 
great care that they fhould never more happen—Populares tumultus 
exortos graviffime coercuit; et ne orirentur fedulo cavit.—Of courfe, 
if he took fo much care that popular commotions Ihould never happen, 
thofe which he fupprefted fo grievoufty could not have happened after 
thofe mentioned in the 14th year, which are mentioned by Clemens 
of Rome, Recog. i. 10, and by Tacitus, iv. 74, 


Fee 





338 


*o «-a; < h m.r: 

, m': 


CHAPTER XVIIJ. 

' • . -H 


Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jew ish believers , but did 
not forbid them to stone, as usual, other Jews. 

By reconfidering what was faid in the xv. chapter, we may per¬ 
ceive that neither the Evangelifts, nor Agrippa, nor Philo, nor Jofe- 
phus accufe Tiberius of having, in the lead, irritated the Jews by any 
innovation in their religious concerns. And we, on the contrary, per¬ 
ceive that each of thofe writers tedifies that he was extremely kind to 
them, and had a great veneration for the object of their religious 
worfhip—the Evangelids fay, that he was fo well difpofed towards the 
Jews, and towards their religion, from the xiv. year of his reign till 
the end of the xvi.—that the rulers of the Jews, in the xiv., acknow¬ 
ledged him as their only king—and that they, in the two following 
years, took the liberty of fending any where for tranfgreflbrs, even for 
thofe who, on the teftimony of Mofes, acknowledged Jefus to be the 
true Meiliah, and for the purpofe of imprifoning them, in order 
to try them for blafphemy againd Mofes, and, if guilty, of doning 
them—and, the red of thofe jewifh writers fay that he was very kind 
to the Jews every where, and very forward to caufe their mode of 













339 





Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone Jewish believers, but, fyc. 

worfhip to be refpe£ted, even till his death. IIow then is it that we 
are told that the Talmud of Jerufalem has recorded a tradition, that 
Ifrael was deprived of the power of putting any one to death, even 

e and, in the 40th year before the deftru&ion 
of Jerufalem?—that is, in the courfe of the 16th of Tiberius, almoft 
to a day. Who but Tiberius can be fuppofed to have done it?—And 
who, but a fimpleton, can have thought that he did ?—Efpecially, as 
he rauft have known that Tiberius, at the fame time, permitted the 
Jews to fend any where out of Judea, not only for tranfgreffors of the 
law, but even for thofc who believed that Jefus was the perfon fore¬ 
told by Mofes, and that he was equal with God, and to ftone them to 
death for it. And yet the two profeffors, (efpecially the latter) alluded 
to in a former chapter, feem to fay, that Tiberius had nothing to do 
with it—nor Sejanus, who, as Philo, we find, informs us, in F. p. 747, 
ad C. p. 785, fought the deflru&ion of the whole nation, but that the 
procurator for the time being did it himfelf. The laft alluded to, 
of thofe molt celebrated Theologians, fays, vol. iii. part ii. p. 83— 
“ If the Sanhedrin obtained from Marccllus a privilege which they did 
“ not enjoy under Pilate, they of courfe, took the earlieft opportunity 
“ of making ufe of it.”—And can thofe two peerlefs profeiTors have 
really thought that it was poflible to perfuade us that the roman pro* 
curators of Judea had undoubtedly the power of making any alteration 
in the religious eftablifhment of the Jews, efpecially one that was the 
grand fupport of their hierarchy ?—And that the Jews fubmitted to it 
without the leaft oppofition, even without appealing to their acknow¬ 
ledged king, who, as Agrippa told Caius, p. 800, B., they were con¬ 
fident would not confent to the infringement of their law by Pilate in 
any cafe?—T ifitptos udiv ruv y.xTxhvicr 9 xi ,~-—If the power ot 

punifhing capital tranfgreflbrs of the law had been taken away from 


w 


E e e 2 








340 



Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewish believers , but , 

the Jews by any procurator under Tiberius, with what propriety could 
Agrippa have ventured to remind his coufin of the fufpenfion of the 
figurelefs gilt fhields, not in the temple, but in the palace of Herod, 
at Jerufalem, by Pilate—or, of the remonftrance of four of the king’s 
Tons, with others of the royal family, to that governor, on that fub- 
je&—or, of the petition which they then threatened to fend to Tibe- 
rius, and which, it feems, they afterwards found themfelves obliged 
to fend to Rome?—Tiberius, added Agrippa, was, on hearing of the 
tranfa&ion, (though Pilate Rated he had done it out of refpeft to his 
fovereign—and, that there was no figure on them,) molt unufually 
exafperated at the prefumption of his praefeft to do a thing which was 
confidered by the Jews as a profanation of the fan&ity of Jerufalem, 
and inftantly ordered him to remove them*—Or, rather, it may be 
afked, would Agrippa, if Pilate had afterwards taken from the Jews 
the power of ftoning blafphemers, have thought of objefting to tfie 
mad project of Caius at all ?—What other reply could he have ex- 
pe&ed to receive from his imperial kinfman but the following?—Pray 
remember how contentedly you, and all your race, bore to be deprived 
of the power of putting any one to death—a power without which 
your hierarchy could not have exifted, and, by Pilate ?—Why then is 
all this oppofition made to my, not much more obje&ionable, proje£t? 
And if Tiberius himfelf had, at any time, deprived the Jews of this 
fupport of their religion, why did not Caius exprefs his furprize at the 
totally oppofite behavior of Agrippa, on that emergency, and, on the 
prefent?—On that occafion, he, fays Jofephus, defired permiflion of 
Tiberius to pay his refpetts to him, and confented, as foon as he was 
afked, to become one of his domeftics—but, on the prefent, he was 
fo fhocked, at the profanenefs of the project of Caius, that he fainted 
away, and was, the day following, incapable of feeing that prince.— 
Belides, if this privation took place in the 16th year of Tiberius, mufi 




341 


Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone Jewish believers , but , 

It not have happened about the time when the perfection, which 
followed the murder of Stephen, ceafed?—that is, about the time when 
the churches had reft ?—Or, a little after Saul was converted—and, 
before he went up to Jerufalem and preached boldly in the name of 
the Lord Jefus?—And, laftly, before the converfion of Cornelius, who, 
Clemens of Rome and Eufebius fay, was converted before the death 
of Tiberius.—Now in what year of Tiberius or of Rome did that per¬ 
fection ceafe ? 

In the firft place, we take it for granted, that Paul was converted 
long before Cornelius was, becaufe his converfion is fpoken of A<fts ix. 
and that of Cornelius in the next chap.—In the mean time, fays Luke, 
Peter viftted all the churches, and tarried, we know not how long, 
at Joppa —ixxvcts ri^fa, s-.—Now Cornelius was, as Clemens of Rome and 
Eufebius inform us, converted long before the death ofTiberius—the 
former fays, Recog. x. 55, and Epit. cxxxiv., that Cornelius was the 
bearer of a precept from Tiberius to the praefedf of Csefarea, on fome 
extraordinary buhnefs of a public nature—and the latter, Eccl. Hift. 
ii. 3, places the converfion of Cornelius under Tiberius. Again— 
Clemens of Alexandria informs us, Strom, iv. p. 528, B,, that Paul, 
though but a young man, became, immediately after the afcenfion, a 
perfedl Chriftian —irsov /j.sv rot, on tt xtxi 0 IlocvXos rots xpovois natfyi, tvQtvs 

ptTtx Tw Td YLvpia axpta7«f."“how as Clemens, we find, alfo fays, 

j. p. 274, that he obtained his information from his elders, one of 
whom, and the belt informed, he fays, was an hebrew —avexa&v— of 
Faleftine, why fhould we not think him entitled to credit on this point? 
Eufebius too appears to have been of the fame opinion with Clemens, 
for, in his Eccl. Hift. ii. 1, he fays, that the converfion of Saul followed 
that of the Eunuch by Philip —*<*> nn tarots k. t . a .— He moreover feems 
to fay that the converfion of Saul happened before Tiberius protected 


342 


Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewisli believers, but, £$c. 

Chriflians—for he mentions the former event in the firft chapter, and 
the latter in the fecond.—With this report of Clemens the Alexan¬ 
drian, and of Eufebius, we find, that one of the excerpta utiliftima* 
cxtradled from the chronology of Africanus, &c. and publifhed by 
Scaliger, feems to agree—Paulas autem Apoftolus poft afcenfionem 
Domini, et poft paftionem Stephani dierum, in Apoftolatum ordinatur 
vi. id us Januariis in confulatu Rnbellio 7 iis> poft afcenfionem Salvatoris 
noftri menfes vii. poft dies xi. paflionis Stephani, pridie Epiphania?. 

The perfecution of jewifh believers, which followed the murder of 
Stephen, appears then to have been begun about eight months after 
the.crucifixion of our Lord, and in the beginning of u. c. 782—and, 
about the fame time, before the beginning of the xvi. year of Tiberius, 
when, the Talmud of Jerufalem fays, the power of inflidting capital 
punifhments was taken from Ifrael.—Now as the churches of Judea, 
&c. are faid by Luke, Adis ix. 31, to have had reft, long before the 
converfion of Cornelius, (for Peter, in the interim, vifited all, the 
churches, of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, and at Joppa remained—■ 
ixxvxs yfjitpxs) and, as Paul is faid not only to have returned to Damas¬ 
cus, but to have gone up to Jerufalem, and there to have preached 
boldly in the name of the Lord Jefus, within three years after his 
converfion, why fhould we not conclude that the perfecution of the 
churches of Judea, &c. rnuft, in the mean time, have been put a flop 
to ?—And by whom could it have been done but by Tiberius ?—And 
how could he have done it fo wejl as by forbidding the Sanhedrin to 
{tone jewifn Chriflians as blafphemers?—Leaving them to {tone capi¬ 
tal tranfgrefTors of the law, as ufual, and even to fend to foreign cities, 
as.ufual, for all forts of tranfgrefTors of it. 

On reconfidering the whole of what has been obferved of this matter, 
why fhould we not fufpedt that. Tiberius could not, as we are told the 



343 


\ 


Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewisli believers, but, fyc. 

* 

Talmud of Jerufalem feems to affirm, have, at any time, taken from 
the Jews the power of punifhing the tranfgreflors of the law of Mofes 
with death?—And why, on the other hand, ffiould we not fufpe£t that 
he, in the 16th year of his reign, took from Ifrael the ufurped power 
ot punifhing their believing brethren with death ?—How otherwife 
can it be accounted for that the perlecution, which followed the mur¬ 
der of Stephen, ceafed ?—And, that Paul, Jhortly after , went up to 
Jerufalem and fpake boldly in the name of the Lord Jefus, and dif- 
puted with the hellenifls ?—That he went up, very fiortly after , why 
ffiould we not conclude, from what Luke fays in the A£ts—viz—that 
all the difciples were afraid of him, and believed not that he was 
a difciple ?—Does not Clemens R. feem to intimate, that Tiberius 
did interfere in behalf of jewifh believers, by faying, that he ordered 
inquifition to be made for the maleficent, all over the provinces, for 
punilhing them with death?—that he had already put many to death, 
and that he fent Cornelius to apprehend Simon, the oppofer of the 
Apoflles, for the fame purpofe ?—And does not Philo feem to inti¬ 
mate the fame thing, by what he fays, in his Leg, of the condufl of 
Tiberius towards certain of the Jews, in the provinces, after their ex- 
pitlhon from Rome?—viz—he there fays, that Tiberius ordered all 
his cheirotonized hyparchs to comfort the Jews, in their refpe£tive 
diftri&s, and to punifh a few only who were culpable.—And does he 
not again feem to intimate the fame thing, by what he fays, in his 
work againfl Flaccus, of the Taraxipolides?—Who were thofe Taraxi- 
polides?—And why did they appear in the time of the profoundeft 
peace that was ever known ? 

Both Agrippa and Philo then are fo far from giving us any encou- 
ragement to believe this tradition, that they, on the contrary, as good 
as tell us, that it was not thought of in their time.—And what better 


j 


Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewisli believers, but, Sgc. 

\ 

evidence refpeaing this affair can be expe&ed than that of a king of 
the Jews, who, was ever intimate with the family of Tiberius, and, 
but a year or two after, lived with him, and that of their own am- 
baffador to Caius ?—But we are not confined to their teflimony only 
on this point, for Jofephus too has not only not thought this mofl im¬ 
portant point not worth noticing—he has alfo, we find, faid enough 
in his A. and B. to convince us that the Jews would not have fuffered 
the fundamental law of their religion to be fufpended without a pro¬ 
portionate oppofition, if not, that Tiberius could not have thought of 
treating them fo injurioufly. For befides having mentioned the ex¬ 
treme grief which the Jews fuffered when Pilate introduced the flan- 
\ 

dards at Jerufalem, and their extreme defperation when Caius had re- 
folved on having his flatue ere&ed, as that of a God, in the temple at 
Jerufalem; he has alfo mentioned how much they were troubled at 
the attempt of Pilate to violate the facred treafury. And this concern 
for their treafury, it fhould be obferved, he feems to fay they mani- 
felled pretty nearly about the time when his predeceffors are under¬ 
flood to have afferted this total privation took place. For, imme¬ 
diately after he has related how Pilate introduced the flandards into 
Jerufalem, he proceeds, in the next fe£lion, (/ 3 ) to relate this other 
attempt of that procurator to violate their facred treafury. And again, 
in the fe&ion following, ( 7 ) he fays, about the fame timc—xxr* t«tof 
tov xxipov —Jefus performed a thoufand wonderful works. And, laflly, 
he, in the next feflion, (S) proceeds to fay, and about the fame time — 
xxt vtto T 8 s xvrus %povH*—the Jews of Rome were driven from that city. 
Now the Jews of Rome were, we have feen, CHAP, xv., expelled in 
the year 783, or, in the fame year in which the Talmud of Jerufalem 
fays tradition affirmed that Ifrael was deprived of the power of infli£l- 
ing capital punifhments. Confequently why fhould we not conclude 


345 


i 


Tibei'ius forbad the Jews to stone jewish believers, but, fyc. 

that Pilate feems very likely to have endeavored to annoy the Jews 
by thole two infringements of their laws about the year 783?—-If what 
Jolephus fays, A. xviii. 5, has been rightly underflood, Pilate can¬ 
not well be fuppofed to have vexed the Jews thus before the year 
above fpecified—for if, as the two profefiors above alluded to will 
have it, Tiberius died while Pilate was on his voyage to Rome, and 
had then, as Jofephus fays, governed Judea ten years, he mufl have 
been made governor of Judea before April 780: and as Jofephus fays 
that the winter was begun —bv upo<roXvp.ois —when he intro¬ 
duced the flandards into Jerufalem, he cannot well be fuppofed to 
have done it before that year was nearly ended: and, as he alfo fays, 
that Pilate afterwards began the aqueduCt, and, that it was, at lead, 
two or three if not four hundred furlongs—that is, 30 or 40 if not 50 
miles long, the probability of our preceding conclufion will be the 
more apparent.* 

Now as Jofephus appears to have placed both of thofe events about 
the year in which the Talmud of Jerufalem affirms tradition placed 
the privation in queflion, and the latter of them in that year—and has 
told us how uneafy the Jews were on each of thofe occafions—and 
how many lives were loft on the latter—but has not taken the leaft 
notice of any uneaftnefs which this privation caufedwhat can be 
plainer than that he knew nothing of this tranfa&ion? 

Before we proceed to confider any other teftimonv of Jofephus on 
this point, it may not be amifs to obferve that the introduction ot the 
ftandards into Jeriifalem muft, by what Agrippa told Caius oi the fuf- 

* Eusebius says, Eccl. hist. ii. 6, that Pilate -was, by the Almighty, per¬ 
mitted to vex the Jews thus, lor their paving put our Lord to death — crvvuott 
o' <zvru kxi 0 ofxoiws ano r uii ^/Aara ^poyuv xxi tuv Kara, ra aurneos 

zy.xy rsro?{/.xpAtyvv, ras y.arx ttxvtos to tQvus ivap^aaOxi avp^popas* 









346 

Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone Jewish believers, but , 8$c. 

penfion of the fliields in the palace of Herod, have been two different 
events; and that Pilate, it may be made to appear, mull have fuf- 
pended the fhields after he had introduced the ftandards. 

Jofephus, belides afterting that they were ftandards, alfo fays, the 
image of CaTar was affixed to them.—Agrippa, on the dire<ft contrary, 
reminded Caius that they were plain gilt unadornedJhields , with no in- 
feription whatever on them belides the names of Tiberius and Pilate. 
Jofephus tells us that thofe ftandards were conveyed into the city by 
night and by Health. Agrippa faid that they were dedicated to Caefar, 
and fufpended in Herod’s palace, where Pilate relided—and, of courfe, 
were intended to remain there. Jofephus fays that the people were- 
fo alarmed at it that they inftantly aftembled, even from diftant parts, 
and went down to Caefarea to requeft Pilate that he would order them 
to be removed inftantly—and, that Pilate kept them there, in fufpence, 
fix or feven days—and, that he then mounted his tribunal, under a 
pretence of hearing their complaint, but, inftead of doing fo, he gave 
a private lignal to his foldiers to furround the multitude, and then or¬ 
dered them, on pain of being treated as feditious, inftantly to difperfe, 
that they refufed to difperfe, faying that they would rather be cut in 
pieces than fee the holy city profaned. Pilate, fays Jofephus, per¬ 
ceiving how invincible the Jews were, inftantly, of his own accord, 
ordered the ftandards to be removed. Agrippa reminded Caius how 
the king’s fons, and others of the nobility, remonftrated with Pilate, 
and delired to fee the emperor’s precept, which, as he had it not to 
ftiew them, they hinted that they meant to fend to Rome for fatis- 
ia&ion on the point, which made Pilate apprehenlive that his other 
numerous oppreftions would be made known—that they did fend a 
deputation to Rome, and that Tiberius was, though not ealily irritated, 
on hearing the charge, very much emaged, and ordered Pilate to re¬ 
move the obnoxious fhields forthwith. < 


\ 


! 

347 

■ » i 

i 

* \ 

Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewish believers, but, %c. 

* 

Now who can think that thofe jewifh writers meant to report the 
fame tranfa£lion ?—And, if they did not, who can help thinking that 
Agrippa meant to remind Caius of that which happened laft ?—Can 
any one fuppofe that Pilate prefumed to offer two fuch open atts of 
violence to the religious notions of the Jews after Tiberius had repri¬ 
manded him fo feverely for his having dedicated thofe unwrought 
fhields, in the palace of Herod, to himfelf? 

As then the two impious attempts of Pilate, mentioned by Jofephus, 
appear to have taken place about the time of our Lord’s crucifixion, 
and the latter of the two in 783 ; that other, mentioned by Agrippa, 
muff, in all probability, have happened a little after in the fame year, 
or, in the year when the Talmud of Jerufalem has been underflood to 
fay, tradition affirmed that Ifrael was deprived of the power of putting 
any one to death, and, as our cotemporary profeffors fuppofe, by 

1 

Pilate, and in the year too when the perfection by Saul feems to 
have ceafed. But as Agrippa, we find, told Caius that the Jews were, 
at the time, confident that Tiberius would not fuffer the leaf: point of 
their law to be violated, and that he reprimanded Pilate fo feverely 
for fo trifling an offence, how can we think that he, in the fame year, 
either deprived them of the fupport of their whole law himfelf or per¬ 
mitted Pilate to do fo ? 

Laflly, Jofephus tells us, A. xviii. 5, how civilly Vitellius behaved 
to the Jews on two or three occafions—when he firfl went up to Jeru- 
falem he remitted the tax on fruit, and permitted the chief priefls to 
keep, as they ufed to do formerly, the facred flole.—And, again, when 
he was marching with Herod againfl Aretas, he defifled, at the re- 
quefl of the Jews, from his intention of marching his troops through 
Judea. 

F f f 2 

1 




l 








318 


Tiberius forbad the Jews to stone jewisli believers, but, S$c. 

Inflead then of finding this moft extraordinary privation recorded by 
every one of the early jewifh writers, we find, to our no little aftonifii- 
ment, that not one of them has mentioned it. And, we moreover find, 
that each of them has faid enough to convince us that Tiberius would 
never allow any privilege to be taken from the Jews—and that the 
Jews would have refilled any attempt to do it, and above all that of 

/ - " .> * v'l 1 

ftoning blafphemers. 




i 


349 


i 



\ 


CHAPTER XIX. 


The rise of Sejcinus. 

L • i^Elius Sejanas was, fays Tacitus, i. 7, 24, the fon of Sejus 
Strabo, the chief, as Paterculus fays, ii. 127, of the roman knights, 
and of a lady of rank, who was related to fev-eral noble families, one 
of which wras probably the iElian.—He had, fays Paterculus, ii. 127, 
brothers, coufins, and an uncle, of confular dignity.—His maternal 
uncle’s name was, fays Tacitus, iii. 35, 72, Junius BlaTus, who was 
the lad fubjedt dignified with the title of—Imperator. 

Sejus Strabo, the father of Sejanus, was in fo great favor with Auguf- 
tus that he made him the commander of his guards, which honorable 
and important ftation he filled when Auguftus died.—After the death 
of his patron, Strabo followed the example of the confuls in fwear- 
ing allegiance to Tiberius* who continued him in the fame important 

office, and afterwards made him the governor of Egypt, when he made 

/ v 

Sejanus the commander of the guards. 









I 


) 

350 

\ 

The rise of Sejanus. 

Sejanus, on his entrance into life, was, fays Tacitus, iv. i, a com¬ 
panion of Caius Caefar, the firil hufband of Livilla, and, confequently 
feems to have been brought up in the court of Auguftus, and to have 
been born rather early in his reign.—He, as Jofephus fays, A. xviii. 

7, s., was alfo afterwards a companion of Drufus, the fecond hufband 
of Livilla. 

Soon after the acceflion of Tiberius, Sejanus, who was, even then, 
in great authority under Tiberius, was, fays Tacitus, i. 24, made his 
father’s colleague in the command of the guards, and fent as re&or to 
Drufus, then about 23 years old, with two praetorian cohorts, to re¬ 
duce to obedience the legions in Pannonia, under Junius Blaefus. 

* 

About the beginning of the 7th year of Tiberius, the daughter of 
Sejanus was, fays Tacitus, iii. 29, contra&ed to a fon of Claudius.— 
This contraft, it feems, muft have been entered into by the parents of 
the young couple in their childhood—for Tacitus himfelf fays, v. 9, 
that fhe was but a girl ten years after—and Suetonius fays, v. 27, that 
this fame contra&ed fon of Claudius died at Pompeii, being choaked 
by a pear, which he tolled up in play and endeavored to catch in his 
mouth. The report of this ftipulated marriage was, as Tacitus fays, 
heard of with indignation—as tending to debafe the imperial family, 
and, to inflate the exceflive hope of Sejanus—efpecially by Drufus, as 
he intimates, iv. 7—but Hill more, we prefume, by the haughty Agrip¬ 
pina, and her adherents.—But would this contraft have been entered 
into while the parties were lo very young, and, have been in force for 
ten years (for fo Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 628, C.,) without the confent of 
all the principal branches of the imperial family—for inftance—of 
Tiberius, Antonia, Livia, and Livilla?—As to its tending to inflate 
the vanity of Sejanus, how could the profpeft of an alliance with the 
family of Claudius, in the perfon of a lad, have inflated his mind. 



351 

» 

The rise of Sejanus. 

who, if we may believe Tacitus, probably had, at the time, a much 
nearer profpeft of being more intimately allied to it in the perfon of 

. . v i ^ 

Livilla?—Suetonius however tells us that a quite contrary report pre¬ 
vailed—viz—that Sejanus, fo far from being elated at the profpeCt of 
having the fon of Claudius for a fon-in-law, contrived to murder him 
—and why he lhould be thought to have done fo, unlefs it was be- 
caufe he would not have him for a fon-in-law, no one can fee. 

One of the two fons of Sejanus was, fays Tacitus, vi. 30, by the 

1 

advice of Tiberius—confilio Tiberii—alfo contracted to a daughter of 

Lentulus Gaetulicus, a man of confular dignity and commander of the 

legions in Upper Germany.—Whether this marriage ever took place 

• 

it does not appear—if it did not, we may conclude from ,an expreflion 
which Tacitus ufes in that chapter—viz—unus omnium Sejani affinium 
incolumis, multaque gratia maniit—that Lentulus Gaetulicus was, by 
fome means or other, allied to Sejanus. 

In the courfe of the year 775 Sejanus diftinguifhed himfelf much by 
his exertions to fave the city, when it was in great danger by a fire 
which happened in Pompey’s Theatre.—Tiberius highly commended 
him for his exertions to fave the city—and, the Senate voted him a 
flatue in the new building.—About the fame time, Junius Blsefus, his 
uncle, who, about a year before, had been, by the interefl of Sejanus, 
appointed proconful of Africa, was, by the fame interefl, honoured 
with a triumph, and, foon after, with the title of— Imperator. 

In the beginning of the year following, 776, the 9th of Tiberius, 
fays Tacitus, iv. 1, the command of the praetorian cohorts was en- 
trufled to Sejanus alone (that is, as Dion, we prefume, feems to fay, 
1. 57, p. 616, C., on the promotion of his father to the government 
of Egypt)—and, at the fame time, praetorian honors were conferred 
on him by Tiberius—that is, furelv, not without the approbation of 





9 










352 

N . * I 1 K 

The rise of Sejanus, 

Drufus (for Drufus had been before inverted with tribunitial authority, 
and, as Tacitus fays, iii. 56, had been made equal with his father in 
public matters)—which honors were never before known to have been 
conferred on any one of his rank. At the fame time, fays Dion, Tibe¬ 
rius made him one of his twenty privy councillors and his ininirter of 
ftate. This Dion remarks, Tiberius did, becaufe his difpofition was 
like his own. Now Tiberius, it fhould be obferved, is faid, even by 
Tacitus, to have been, at the time, the beft and the moft fugacious 
of princes, and to have employed only men of the moft approved 
chara&ers, even though they were but little known—Res fuas Caefar 
fpe&atiffimo cuique, quibufdam ignotis ex fama mandabat.—And 
Philo, we find, fays, that no prince knew men better than Tiberius. 
Can it then be fuppofed that he would have made choice of a bad 
minifter?—Efpecially after fo long a trial?—If we may believe Pater¬ 
culus, ii. 127, who was intimate both with Tiberius and Sejanus, and 
who addreffed his hiflory to one of the then confuls, who was about 
to marry Julia, the daughter of Germanicus, Sejanus was, like his 
mafter, poftefted of every excellence. But if we can believe Tacitus, 
iv. 1, he had fcarce one excellence, and moft bad qualities: and though 
by no means a match for Tiberius in cunning, was able to circumvent 
him. 

No fooner was his commiflion enlarged than he, as Tacitus and 
Dion fay, (though Suetonius, iii. 37, fays, that Tiberius himfelf did 
it) propofed to colleft all the praetorian cohorts, difperfed throughout 
Italy, into one body at Rome. 

In the beginning of the icth year of Tiberius, when it was ufual 
to offer up prayers for the prefervation of the emperor, the chief and 
other priefts, who, it fcents , Tacitus, iv. 17, fays, were mojlly related 
to Agrippina, prayed for the prefervation of Nero and Drufus, This 


V 


353 


The rise of Sejanus. 

Tiberius relented highly. And, fays Tacitus, Sejanus took care to in¬ 
flame his refentment, by obferving that the Hate was divided into two 
parties, fo oppolite, as to be ready to deftroy each other—that Agrip¬ 
pina headed the adverfe party—that it was become neceflary to make 
an example of one or two of the ringleaders.—Inllabat quippe Sejanus, 
incufabatque didu&am civitatem, ut civili bello; efle qui fe partium 
Agrippinx vocent: ac ni refiflatur, fore pluris. Neque aliud glifcentis 
difcordia? remedium, quam fi unus alterve maxime prompti fubver- 
terentur. 

But did Sejanus think it at all neceflary to apprife his molt faga- 
cious mailer, then refiding at Rome, of what concerned his fafetyr— 
If not, why is he here introduced as the reporter of this wonderful dif- 
covery ?—However, does not this feem to imply that the interceflions 

t 

of the priells were fuppofed to have a tendency to promote difaffec- 
tion?—And, that a fort of confpiracy had been entered into by Agrip¬ 
pina with certain leading men of Rome, in favor of Nero and Drufus? 
—If not that the adverfe party conlidered Sejanus as a£tive to defeat 
their defign?—But who, does Tacitus fay, were the chief confpirators 
with Agrippina ?—And, by what means did they hope to carry their 
plot into effect ? 

Two of the principals, fays he, were C, Silius and T. Sabinus—• 
the former had commanded feven years in Germany—the latter, fays 
Dion, was,a leading man at Rome— wtipos. ruv vpuruv & P wpn .—Sofia 
Galla, the wife of Silius, was, fays Tacitus, alfo accufed, by Sejanus, 
of being an accomplice. Silius and his wife were, fays he, tried im¬ 
mediately—T. Sabinus, about three years after. But were thofe the 
only ones concerned?—Was not Calpurnius Pifo of the party?—If we 
may believe Paterculus, ii. 130, Silius and Pifo feem to have been the 




354 


The rise of Sejanus. 

chief confpirators, if not the only ones—Primum, ut fcelerata Drufus 
Libo iniret confilia: deinde, ut Silius et Pifo : quorum alterius digni¬ 
tatem conftituit, auxit alterius ?—Indeed Tacitus himfelf feems to ac¬ 
knowledge, C. 21, that Pifo was much more likely to have been im¬ 
mediately concerned in the confpiracy than Sabinus, for lie fays that 
he was tried immediately after Silius and his wife—not for his attach¬ 
ment^^ the family of Germanicus, we may well fuppofe, unlefs he 
was related to Pifo, the governor of Syria, as he pretends they were, 
nor by the contrivance of Sejanus, but for having confpired againft 
Caefar—and, for having gone armed into the Senate-houfe—and on 
the evidence of Q. Granius.—Prifonem Q. Granius fecreti fermonis 
incufavit adverfum majeftatem habiti: adjecitque in domo venenum 
efle, eumque gladio accindtum introire curiam. 

« 

Sejanus then feems to have had nothing to do with the accufation 
of Pifo, and, if fo, and Pifo was, as Paterculus fays, in a confpiracy 
with Silius, may we not fufpedt that he did not accufe Silius ? 

In the nth year, fays Tacitus, iv. 39, Sejanus, who, we have feen, 
was, from his infancy, brought up with the imperial family—and who, 

three or four years before, had been advifed, by Tiberius, to engage 

% 

his daughter to a fon of Claudius, the brother of Livilla, was, fays he, 
importuned by Livilla to fulfill his promife of marrying her.—Sejanus, 
in compliance with her requeft, prefented a petition to Tiberius to ob¬ 
tain his confent.—Tiberius, fays Tacitus, delicately ftated what might 
be objedfed to the alliance, and referred him to Antonia and Livia, as 
the perfons nearer concerned; and concluded, not only with declaring 
that he would not, at a future time, oppofe the match—but with 
alluring him that he would do great things for him.—Their attach¬ 
ment to each other, fays Suetonius, iii. 65, continued till the year in 
which Sejanus fell, even though they both were, as Dion fays, 1 . 58, 


\ 


\ 


355 


The rise of Sejanus. 

P* 637, notorious adulterers—and Liviila, it feems, though at the time 
not married, with not a few, who were afterwards punifhed for it ?— 

1 

Whether they ever were afterwards married we fhall come to enquire 
prefently. 

About a year after, that is, in the 12th of Tiberius, Sejanus demon- 

ftrated his attachment to Tiberius in a moft remarkable manner: bv 

* 

rifquing his own life to fave that of Tiberius, when the roof of the 
grotto fell on him in Campania, and many of his friends and atten¬ 
dants were wounded.—So high an opinion had Tiberius, fays Tacitus, 
of this fervice rendered him by Sejanus, that he commiffioned him to 
contrive the deftru&ion of the family of Germanicus, and efpecially 
of Nero, the next in fucceffion, who, he fays, was, at the time, ftimu- 
lated by his freedmen and clients to feize the prefent opportunity of 
fhewing his fpirit, and allured by them that the people of Rome and 
the army would fupport him.—But what kind of a recompence was 
this for having rendered him fo vital a fervice?—Would it not have 
been much more acceptable to Sejanus if Tiberius had immediately 
confented to his marriage with Liviila ?—and endeavored to obtain the 
confent of Antonia?—which, it feems, could hardly have been necef- 
fary, for as the was always much attached to Tiberius, and could not 
but have known that the only daughter of Sejanus was, by the appro¬ 
bation of Tiberius, about to be married to her grandfon Drufus, the, 
no doubt, would have been very glad to reward fuch fervice with fuch 
an alliance.—Why then fhould Tiberius be faid to have propofed fuch 
a thing to him as a reward for his important fervice, which could 
only have tended to deprive him of his pleafanteft profpe£t. Was it 
at all likely that the dependants of Nero could have attempted to per- 
fuade him that it was a proper time to oppofe his uncle ?——or, that Ije 


Ggg2 







SoG 


The rise of Sejanus. 

would be fupported by the Romans?—If there was the leaft danger of 
an infurredtion why did Tiberius, who, Tacitus fays, A. iv. 67, ufed to 
be full of fufpicions at Rome—Manebat quippe fufpicionum et ere- 
dendi temeritas—leave Rome, and with the commander of his guards ? 
And, above all, why, if the people of Rome were inclined to fide with 
Nero, did they, when the Amphitheatre at Fidenae fell, and when the 
buildings on Mount Ccelius were burnt, petition Tiberius to alleviate 
their fufferings? 

No fooner had this new office been propofed to Sejanus than he en¬ 
tered on it, not with reludtance, but with zeal, not elandeflinely, but 
openly; and fet fpies on Nero, and even employed his brother Drufus, 
and his wife (who, Tacitus feems to fay, iv. 60, was the daughter of 
Livia or Livilla,) to difclofe his fecrets.—And, a few months after, he 
fet a military guard over not only him but alfo his mother. 

In the beginning of the year 781, fays Tacitus, Titius Sabinus, an 
illuflrious knight, who had, more than three years before, been accu- 
fed of confpiring with Agrippina and others, in favor of Nero and 
Drufus, was, as Tacitus pretends, imprifoned for continuing {till his 
adherence to the family ofGermanicus—or, rather for having fuffered 
himfelf to be decoyed to fpeak honorably of Germanicus and his 
family, and molt difhonorably of Sejanus, and even difrefpedtfully of 
Tiberius.—The particulars of his hard cafe, as related by Tacitus, we 
have had occahon to confider in two foregoing chapters—viz— 
vii. ix.—But as we, in thofe two chapters, were not fo much con¬ 
cerned about the elucidation of the character of Sejanus, as that of 
Tiberius, we omitted to notice what other writers had and had not 
faid of the part which Sejanus took in the accufation.—Let us there¬ 
fore now attend to what one or two cotemporary writers fay of this 
affair—and alfo what Dion fays of it. 

*; ' j: * t ’ • <• i ‘ i . . 


* 


357 


The rise of Sejanus . 

Seneca, though he wrote his Confolation to Marcia about the very 
time, and in it accufes Sejanus of having been the caufe of the death 
of Cordus, for fpeaking too freely of thofe in power, and of feeding 
his dogs with human blood, to make them more favage towards thofe 
he hated, has not noticed the fate of this knight.—Pliny, who, we 
have feen, fays that Sabinus was profecuted— ex caufa Neronis —has 
noticed it, but only for the fake of recording the fidelity of his dog, 
to the no little afionifhment of the immenfe number of fpe&ators who, 
regardlefs of the fate of Sabinus, flood obferving its motions.—Dion 
fays not a word of the attachment of Sabinus to the family of Germa- 
nicus, nor of the hoflility of Sejanus to him, nor of his perfecution of 
him on that account—-neither does he fay that Sabinus was accufed 
of having charged either Sejanus or Tiberius of unjuft feverity towards 
the family of Germanicus.—He, however, feems to fay, that Sejanus 
had fome kind of diflike to Sabinus—that thofe fenatorial accufers firfi: 
began to calumniate any one in order to pleafe Sejanus—that the cir- 
cumvented perfons were fure to be puniflied if they faid ever fo little 
in addition to their calumnies— ai S’ o, rl xv >ixi to ( 3 px^vTXTov e%co r« x.xQztv)- 
xoros tnruHu * oXxfyvrxi. —Such, fays Dion, was the conduct of thofe fena¬ 
torial fycophants, not only towards Sabinus , the only, as Tacitus fays, 
remaining adherent of the family of Germanicus, but towards all other 
fie o[ile, 

- / 

This is the account which Dion gives of this affair.—How very 
different is it from that of Tacitus!—Tacitus, we find, fays, that Sabi¬ 
nus was the only perfon circumvented by thofe fenators.—Dion fays 
that he was far from being the only perfon—that they made a fort of 
trade of accufing.—Tacitus fays that he was decoyed to the houfe of 
Latiaris, as being notorioufly attached to the family of Germanicus, 
and, indeed, as being the only remaining client fo attached.—Dion 






/ 


358 


The rise of Sejanus. 

fays nothing of his attachment to that family, nor of his contumelious 
reproaches of Sejanus and Tiberius. 

\ 

But where was Sejanus while thofe doings were, by his inftigation, 
tranfa&ing at Rome?—If we may believe Tacitus, he was, with Tibe¬ 
rius, at Capreae, and feemingly afraid, as well as Tiberius, to confent 
to an interview with the Senate, &c.; and fo unable to protect his few 
dependants, who were permitted to fee him, that he could not pre¬ 
vent the grievous exit that awaited them. 

In the year 782, fays Tacitus, v. 4, Sejanus wds, notwithftanding 
his being guarded by dogs fed with human blood, clandeftinely at¬ 
tacked by anonymous writers—of this it is not faid that he complained; 
but of the ill ufage which his patron had received, it is faid that he 
did complain. 

In this and the next year—viz—782, 783, Dion tells us, 1 . 58, that 
the moft unufual honors were beftow'ed on him both by Tiberius and 
the Senate, &c. 

Sejanus then, the commander of the praetorian guards and the privy 
counfellor of Tiberius, was, if we may believe Tacitus, after the death 
of Livia, infulted, together with Tiberius, by the Senate and by the 
people, both openly and by libels, becaufe, as he would have us to 
think, Agrippina and Nero were accufed of fomething, not of a capital 
nature, though, if we may believe Paterculus, ii. 130, of a very dif- 
honorable nature, committed a long while before the death of Livia. 
But how does this report agree with that of Paterculus, or with that of 
Dion?—Paterculus, we find, in the end of the year 783, enumerates 
the praifes of Tiberius and of his prime minifter, and fpeaks very dif- 
refpe&fully of the conduft of Agrippina and Nero.—And Dion, we 
find, fays 1 . 58, p. 622, A., that Sejanus, fhortly if not immediately 



3o9 


The rise of Sejanus. 

after the death of Livia, began to be flill more lifted up— 0 h ’Zyia.vos 
sri k<zi fxxXXov ypsro. —And, a little after, in the fame page, B., he fays, 
that the Senate decreed that his birth-day fhould be kept, and that an 
innumerable multitude of ftatues were erefted to him, by the patri¬ 
cians, the knights, all the tribes, and the principal men.—The Senate, 
fays he, the knights, the tribunes of the people, and the aediles fent 
deputies to him, as well as to Tiberius, offered up vows for both, 
facrificed to both, fwore by their fortunes.—And again he fays, in the 
next page, 623, C., that deceived and credulous people, in the year 
784, erected flatues of brafs to them, and procured their portraits, and 
placed gilded chairs of ftate for them in the Theatre—and, that the 
Senate decreed that their confulfhip fhould be continued for five years 
•—that their body fhould go in proceflion to meet them whenever they 
fhould enter the city—and that they fhould facrifice to them alike.— 
Surely then there appears to be a no little difference between the re¬ 
port of Tacitus and thofe of Paterculus and Dion. 

The laft obfervable thing that Tacitus fays of Sejanus is that he was, 
at laft, the fon-in-Iaw of Tiberius—Non enim Sejanum Vulfinienfem, 
fed Claudiae et Julia? domus partem, quas adfinitate occupaverat, tuum 
Ca>far generum tui confulatus focium, tua ofticia in republica capef- 
fentem colebamus. A. vi. 8. 

On a review of all that has been faid concerning the rife of Sejanus 
it appears that he was a companion of Caius—that is, of the grandfon 
of Auguflus, of the fon-in-law of Tiberius, and of the firft hufband 
of Livilla—that he was a great favorite both with Auguftus and with 
Tiberius, and, as Dion fays, 1 . 57, p. 616, D., becaufe he was, in 
difpofition, like Tiberius—that he was the re&or of Drufus, whofe 
widow, Livilla, he, juft before his own fall, married, by the confent 
of Tiberius, obtained foon after the death of Drufus.—-As then Sejanus 


/ 


/ 











360 


The rise of Sejanus. 

was, at iaft, married to Livilla, by the confent of Tiberias, and, no 
doubt, of Antonia, her mother—let us next proceed to obferve whether 
what Tacitus fays of the murder of Drufus be fo credible as he would 
have us to believe; and, whether any or all of the three perfons, 
Sejanus, Livilla, and Tiberius, faid to have been concerned in it, were 
really fo or not. 


i. 






f 


ff \ 


i 












/ 


/ 


l 


361 

I 

S I 



I 




' • J# . • . . 

t 

CHAPTER XX. 

1 " 

Drusus whether 'poisoned? 

Drusus is, by Tacitus, iv. 8, faid to have been long ill —per 
o;nnes valetudinis ejus dies.—Indeed it appears, by what he fays of 
him, iii. 49, that his death had been more than a year before—that is, 
in the end of that in which he and his father were confuls, generally 
expe&ed—and by Suetonius, iii. 62, to have been thought, even by 
Tiberius, to have died of intemperance—what reafon then have we 
to think that he died of poifon ?—Had it been fufpedted, at the time, 
would not an enquiry have been made ?—The caufe of the death of 
Germanicus, who was not invefled with tribunitial authority, we are 
told, was, on the return of Pifo, moft carefully inveftigated by the 
Senate. Why then, if there was the leail reafon to fufpeft that Drufus 
had died by the fame means, did not the Senate, who had, but the 
fecond year before, as Tacitus and Dion fay, put C. Lutorius to death 
for only compofing an epitaph on him—and who, but the year before, 
decreed him all and the moil unufual marks of honor—-who, as Taci- 


H h h 











362 

Drustis whether ‘poisoned? 

tus fays, iv. 6, flill retained the privilege of difcufling public and the 
more important private matters, and who, as Tacitus alfo fays, iv. 9, 
decreed him many more funeral honors than they had decreed to Ger- 
manicus, make a fimilar invefligation ?—But, fays Tacitus, iv. 10, there 
was, at the fame time , a report that Tiberius himfeif adminiftred the 
poifon—and confequcntly, it mufl have been, at that time, believed 
that he was poifoned—fed non omiferim eorumdem tem[iorum rumorem 
adeo validum, ut nondum exolefcat, &c.—But does this pretended 
rumour agree with what Suetonius fays, iii. 52 ?—he there fays, that 
people of all parts fent addrefles to Tiberius condoling with him on the 
lofs of his only fon; and, that the people of Ilium were fo tardy in 

prefenting their addrefs, that Tiberius pleafantly replied to it that he 

* % 

alfo was forrv for their lofs of He&or. 

J 

That Drufus then was poifoned why fhould we be expected to 
believe ?—Tacitus and others, however, fay, that he was poifoned.— 

Tacitus alfo fays that Sejanus, after he was employed as prime-minifter, 

* 

contrived to get it done—that he did it, in hope of having the foie 
direction of public bufinefs—and that he firft feduced and debauched 
Livilla—and that he then, though married himfeif, promifed her mar¬ 
riage, and a fhare in the fovereignty—ad conjugii fpem, confortium 
regni, et necem mariti pellexit—if (he would only aflift him in poifon- 
ing her own hufband, and coufin, by whom fhe had three children. 
Suetonius, however, feems pretty clearly to differ from Tacitus—he 
feems to affert, iii. 55, that Sejanus was not employed till after the 
death of Drufus—for he there fays of him, that he was employed not 
only to circumvent the fons of Germanicus, but to fecure the fuccef- 
fion for the fon of Drufus—nepotemque fuum ex Drufo filium natu- 
ralem ad fucceffionem imperii confirmaret.—Now if Sejanus was really 
employed for this purpofe, mult he not have been employed after the 
(Jetah ol Drufus.—Why then does Tacitus tell us that he was made 


363 


/ 


✓ 


Drusus whether poisoned? 


prime-minifter before the death of Drufus?—But, admitting that Taci¬ 
tus is right, if Drufus was then fo very ill, of what ufe was it to think 
of poifoning him—befides, is it at all credible that Sejanus would, as 
foon as he had been made prime-minifter, have made fuch a propofal ? 
And, at a time too when he was, in all probability, employed, becaufe 
Drufus was unable to attend to the affairs of the Bate?—Or that Livilla 
would have confented to it?—Was he indeed fure that he Ihould, bv 
murdering Drufus, fecure to himfelf the fuccefiion ?—If fo, why does 
Tacitus fay, in the beginning of this fame chapter—Ceterum plena 
Caefarum domus—nepotes adulti. &c.;—and again, chapter 12, that 
he afterwards thought it neceffary to fet afide the fons of Germanicus 
—quorum non dubia fucceftio ?~—Could Sejanus have thought that 

Livilla, the wife of the heir apparent Drufus, the mother of the next 

/ 

in fucceftion, and the aunt of Nero, Drufus, and Caius, would have 
exchanged her profpeft of fucceeding to the empire by a legal claim, 
for one which was likely to be difputed?—and, at the expence of inju¬ 
ring the claims of her own foil, and that of her brother’s fons?—or, as 
Tacitus himfelf exprefles it in the fequel of the fame chapter—ut pro 
honeftis et praefentibus, flagitiofa et incerta expe&aret—and aC a time 
too when Tiberius had done every thing praifeworthy, and nothing to 
offend the people—and Sejanus was but recently employed? 

Tacitus afterwards fays, in the fame chapter, that Sejanus, before 
the death of Drufus, if not before his illicit connexion with Livilla, 
turned his wife Apicata, by whom he had three children, out of doors 
—and, that he did it, in order to avoid giving Livilla any fufpicion— 
pellit domo Apicatam, ex qua tres liberos genuerat, ne [lelllci fuf[ietta- 

retur. —How then could fhe be fuppofed to have known any thing of 

% 

the fuppofed murder of Drufus?—efpecially as it appears, by what he 

H h h 2 




I 






/ 


;j6i 

Drusus whether poisoned? 

fays In the end of the fame chapter, iv. 3—viz—Sed magnitudo faci- 
noris metum, prolationes, diverfa interdum confiha adferebat—that 
the murder was not perpetrated till fome time after her cruel extrufion 
took place ?—Now after he had faid this, who would have expe&ed 
that he would have faid that Apicata alone difcovered the whole tranf- 
aflion ?—And yet, we find, he does fay fo, chapter 11—Ordo alioqui 
fceleris per Apicatam Sejani proditus, tormentis Eudemi et Lygdi pate- 
faftus eft.—And, ftrange to fay, file did not make the murder known 
immediately, but, as he fays, chap. 8, after an interval of eight years— 

•j 

id Drufo datum per Lygdum fpadonem, ut o&o poft annos cognitum 
eft.—But, admitting that fhe was let into the fecret, what reafon could 

T ^ f v " 

fhe have had for concealing this moft atrocious deed from Tiberius, 

f 

while he was the beft of princes, for Tacitus himfelf fays, that Tibe- 

rius continued fuch till the death of Drufus—Quae cunfla.reti- 

nebat, donee morte Drufi verterentur: nam dum fuperfuit, manfere— 
and for informing him of it when he had ceafed to be a very good 
prince and delighted in nothing but cruelty ?—And when he had no 
longer an opportunity of exercifing his cruelty on the principal perpe¬ 
trators of fo foul a murder?—If we may believe Dion, 1 . 58, p. 628, D., 
file did it in order to be revenged on Tiberius for the lofs of her own 
children, all three of whom, as V. Maximus, we have feen, fays, were, 
together with their father, without authority from Tiberius, trod to 
death by the enraged populace—or rather, perhaps, as Tacitus, wc 
have feen, fays, two were permitted to furvive, till the rage of the 
populace had fubfided, and were then, by a decree of the Senate, put 
to death,—Why then, as Tiberius appears to have given no order for 
the execution of her children, ffiould Apicata be faid to have made 
the difeovery out of revenge to him ?—If fhe was at all a&uated by 
revenge why did fhe not make the difeovery while the perpetrators of 
the murder were ftill living?—efpecially if they were fo notorioufly in- 



\ 



365 

Drusus whether poisoned? 

t 

famous, as Dion reprefents them to have beenat 1 . 58, p. 623, A., 
he fays, of him, that he promifed marriage to all the married ladies 
of Rome—and, at p. 637, A., of her, that the, no doubt, while the 
wife of Drufus, committed adultery not only with Sejanus, but with 
Scaurus, and with many other men, who, he alfo fays, were, ten 

years after the death of Drufus, punifhed for it. 

♦ 

In fhort—that Apicata fhould, of ail others, be alone in pofTedion 
of the fecret is what nobody will believe—and, that the kept the 
fecret, under all thofe circumftances, for eight years, is what nobody 
can believe. 

This is the report which Tacitus and Dion have recorded as the 
only authentic one.—Rut though this is delivered by Tacitus as the 
only written one that had reached his time, yet it appears, by what he 
afterwards fays, chapter 10, that it was not the only one—he there 
fays, that, at the fame time , another report prevailed—and that though 
no writer, however adverfe—infenfus—to Tiberius, had noticed it, it 
was fo much credited by the vulgar, that it had reached his time.-~» 
It is this—that Sejanus having preconcerted the matter with Li^iila, 
perfuaded Tiberius that Drufus had invited him to a banquet for the 
purpofe of murdering him—that Lygdus, his eunuch, was ordered to 
mix the poifon in the firft cup called for—that Tiberius, thus ap* 
prifed, ordered the cup to be delivered to his foil—that Drufus, to 
avoid fufpicion, drank it. 

But could it have been poftible for Sejanus, who, Tacitus acknow¬ 
ledges, was not a match for Tiberius in cunning, to have perfuaded, 
fo eaftly, the moil fagacious of princes, that his only child, then in 
the laft ft age of debility, meant to invite him to a banquet merely to 
poifon him?—Or would Tiberius* who, as Tacitus himfelf allows, 
was, at the time, only about to begin to be a bad prince, and, but the 




366 




£>? “usus whether poisoned? 

year before, recommended his fon to the Senate as a proper perfon to 
be invelted with the tribunitial authority, have liftened, as Tacitus 
himfelf obferves, to fo abfurd a rtory concerning his only child ?— 
And if he would, would he have precipitately put him to death r—If 
it had been thought, at the time, that he had been inrtigated, by any 
one, to be the rath caufe of the death of his only child, would all the 
different rtates have fent addreffes of condolence to him on the occa- 
fion ? —Or would they, if they had heard that fome other perfon or 
perfons had done it, have prefented fuch addrelTes without expreftmg 
their abhorrence of the crime, and of the author?—This evidence 
alone of Suetonius is fufficient to render the credibility of this vulgar 
report not a little queftionable.—But in his 6irt and 62d chapters he 
gives a much more direft refutation of it—6irt, he fays, that Tiberius 
was, after the deftru&ion of Sejanus, the moft cruel—and, chap. 62d, 
that after he was informed by what means his fon had been mur¬ 
dered he was rtill more cruel—that he fpent whole days in the enquiry 
—that he put every one to the torture who were charged with being 
concerned in it—and, among the reft, an unfortunate Rhodian friend, 
who happened to call on him by invitation at the nick of time.—But* 
after all that has been faid of this traditionary report, the other ac¬ 
count which Tacitus gives of this matter, on the authority of former 
writers—viz—that it was, eight years after, difeovered that Sejanus 
and Livilla were the perpetrators of it, is, though he does not feem to 

i 

have been aware of it, a direft refutation of at lead the continuance 
of it.—For if Tiberius, eight years after, tormented Lygdus and Eude- 
mus, on the information of Apicata—and, as Suetonius fays, fpent 
many days together in the enquiry, and fpared nobody, not even an 
innocent friend, how could any perfon, after all that, have any longer 
thought that he himfelf was guilty of it ?—And yet Tacitus himfelf 

devotes a chapter to prove the tradition unfounded—thereby expoftng 

/*■* 

i i 


i 


Drusus whether poisoned? 

\ ' • 

the dimnefs of his o«\vn fligacity—and, confequently difpofing people to 
queflion the credibility of his other report.—For if it was, at the time, 
commonly thought at Rome that Tiberius himfelfhad poifoned his fon, 
how mud they have been furprifed to hear that Sejanus and Livilla 
had done it ?—and interefted to know how the difcovery was made ? 
And when they were told that Apicata was privy to the whole affair, 
would they not have been more aflonifhed, and flill more fo that (lie 

s' 

fhould, under fuch ufage, have concealed it fo long ?—and when they 
were alfo told that fhe had not difclofed the affair to any neighbour, 
but to Tiberius himfelf, at Caprea?—and, as Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 62.8, 
D., by a letter, would they not be inquifitive to know by what means 
Ihe contrived to fend it?—And above all, when they were informed, 
as Dion alfo fays, that fhe did it by way of revenging the lofs of her 
children, who had been killed by thofe very people and by the Senate, 
and that fhe had deftroyed herfelf immediately, would they not have 
been inclined to pity her as infane ?—And if the roman people thought 
fo of her, would not the mod fagacious Tiberius ?—Is this then a dory 
fit to be recorded by an impartial hidorian ?—Is it not rather fuch an 
one as none but the calumniating fcriblers, mentioned by Tacitus, 
iv. ix, would have noticed? 

Having now difcovered that it would be abfurd to fuppofe that fuch 
a report could have prevailed after the torturing of Lygdus, &c, and 
the innocent Rhodian.—Let us next proceed to enquire how far it is 
likely that it could have prevailed prior to the difcovery. 

Paterculus, we find, obfenred to M Vinicius how Tiberius grieved 
for the lofs of his only fon.—-Ut ad majora tfanfceiidam quanquam et 
hsec ille duxit maxima: quid ut juvenes amitterct filios? quid ut nepo- 
tem ex Drufo fuo > Dolenda adhuc retulimus: veniendum ad erubef- 
cexida ed, &c.~Now if, Tiberius had, in the 16th year of his reign, 









368 

Drusus whether ‘poisoned?- 

been thought to have been acceflary to the death of his only fon, 
would Paterculus have written thus to M. Vinicius, who probably was, 
iit the time, about to form a family connexion with Julia the daughter 
of Germanicus? 

Jofephus alfo fays, A. xxiii. 7, a., how much Tiberius felt for the 
lofs of his only fon. He gives us to underhand that he was, for fome 
time, inconfolable on that account. He tells us that he could not 
fuffer any of his intimates in his fight—that Agrippa, the moil inti¬ 
mate, was, on that account, obliged to leave Italy ;—and again—- 
Jofephus fays, how heartily he welcomed Agrippa, on his return to 
Puteoli, to Capreas, as the acquaintance of his fon. 

Suetonius, in feveral places, fays enough to convince us that he 
either never heard of this report or confidered it as too abfurd to be 
noticed—chap. 39, he fays—Sed orbatus utroque filio: quorum Ger- 

• „ 1 _ 

manicus in Syria, Drufus Romas obierat: fecefifum Campaniae petiit: 
—chap. 52, he fays, that Tiberius did not love Drufus with a fatherly 
affe&ion,* and why—becaufe he was difpleafied at his vicious conduft 
—Alterius vitiis infenfus—chap. 54, that he was deprived of his chil- 
dren by death—deftitutus morte liberorum—chap. 55, he fays, that 
Tiberius employed Sejanus in order to fecure the fucceflion for his 
grandfon—nepotemque fuum ex Drufo filium naturalem ad fuccef- 
fionem Imperii confirmaret. He alfo fays, 62, that he thought Drufus 
died by a diforder caufed by intemperance, and that when, at laft, he 
was informed that he died by poifon, and that Sejanus and Livilla, 
then both dead, had adminiftered it to him, he put every perfon fuf- 
pe&ed to have been an accomplice to the torture, and, by chance, an 
unfufpe&ed Rhodian vifitor, who happened to come in while the in- 

* Dion says, 1. 57, p. 618, B., x.xi tuj yei, «rs kcci p.ovw x<xt yyr)<Tiy/ oyr;, yrpocn- 

XSJTW. ' . • 




369 


Drusus whether 'poisoned? 

qulry was on foot. Confequently, it appears, by this evidence of Sue¬ 
tonius, that Tiberius was never fufpe&ed to have been the caufe of the 
death of his own fon. 

Dion too fays, 1 . 57, p. 610, D., that Tiberius ufed frequently to 
reprove Drufus, both publicly and privately, for his petulance and 
cruelty—and, that he once faid to him—you (hall not do fo, young 
man, as long as I live, nor, if I can prevent it, after I am gone—and 
though he acknowledges, p. 618, A. B., that Tiberius was, by fome, 
thought to have been the voluntary caufe of the death of his only fon 
—and, becaufe he feems to have taken fo little notice of it. But, con¬ 
tinues Dion, that he was fo I cannot believe—« ^rot nu res- 0 Xoyos — 
becaufe he behaved in the fame manner towards every one of his 
departed friends—becaufe he loved exceedingly his only fon—and 
becaufe he punifhed feverely all thole who were afterwards found to 
have been concerned in the murder—fome in' mediately, fome after¬ 
ward — T8s (aev sv9v?j ras- (mtx txvtx tKohaas. 

Indeed that Tiberius fhould, in the 65th year of his age and the 9th 
of his reign, when, as Tacitus fays, he began to be no longer a very 
excellent prince—and flill gave, as Tacitus further fays, chapter 11, 
proofs of his impartial adminiftration of juft ice, and was, as he alfo 
fays, fo dilatory in punifhing all other offences, have been fo precipi¬ 
tate as to poifon his only fon, who had never offended him—infita 
denique ctiam in extraneos cunflatione et mora, adverfum unicum, 
et nullius ante flagitii compertum uteretur—and but a few months 
after he had obtained for him the tribunitial authority, is what nobody, 
as Tacitus acknowledges, iv. 11, can fuppofe. 

s 

But what proof have we that Livilla was known to have been con¬ 
cerned in the murder of her hufband ?—Had fhe been proved an ac- 


Iii 


Drusus whether poisoned? 

ceflary, may we not expeCI to find fome mark of infamy fixed on her 
memory?—as, we find, Tacitus fays, A. xi. 38, the Senate afterwards 
affixed on that of the infamous Meflalina?—Juvitque oblivionem ejus 
fenatus, cenfendo nomen et effigies privatis ac publicis locis demo- 
vendas. 

\ 

\ - , ** > f • 

In the beginning of the year after the death of Sejanus—that is, 
about two or three months after his death, fays Tacitus, vi. 2, the 
Senate made fome very fevere reflections on the effigies and memory 
of Livilla, as if her flagitious practices had lately been deteCled, and 
had not for a long while been punifhed—At Romas principio anni, 
quafi recens cognitis Liviae flagitiis, ac non pridem etiam punitis, atro- 
ces fententiae dicebantur in effigies ac memoriam ejus.—By this it ap¬ 
pears that Livilla died not long before, but whether before or after 
the death of Sejanus it is not faid—(certainly before the death of Api- 
cata, and, if Dion’s report be true, before thofe of the two furviving 
children of Sejanus,) and, that when fhe died the ufual refpeCts were 
paid to her memory, as if fhe was neither fufpeded of the death of 
Drufus, nor of thofe numerous adulteries for which fo many, as Dion 
fays, were afterwards punifhed, Soon after, indeed, her fcandalous 
pradices and her murder was known—yet they do not appear to have 
been noticed by Tiberius, though fo exafperated againft all her ac¬ 
complices, for he ftill permitted her effigies to remain. But though 
Tiberius did not notice her infamous conduCt, yet the Senate, it feems, 
did. And why ?—Did they attempt to prove the illegitimacy of the 
young Tiberius?—And for the purpofe of excluding him from the 
fucceffion ?—For it feems her flagitious praClices had been committed 
a long while before, and fhe was not married long enough to Sejanus 
to have had any iffue by him. But whatever they may have thought 
of the legitimacy of the young Tiberius, yet Tiberius himfelf, it feems, 
both by what Suetonius, iii. 55, and Tacitus, vi. 46, fay, h^d no doubt 



\ 



371 

I 

Drusus whether ‘poisoned? 

of it. For Suetonius there fays that he did not make choice of Sejanus 
as his minifter becaufe he liked him, but becaufe he meant to ufe him 
as his tool to circumvent the family of Germanicus, and to fecure the 
fucceflion for Tiberius, the fon of Livilla—and Tacitus, fpeaking of 
his grandfon and grandfon by adoption, fays—of whom the fon of 

Drufus, was by blood and natural afle£tion nearer, though {till a lad 

/ 

—quorum Drufo genitus, fanguine et caritate propior, fed nondum 
pubertatem ingreflus—and in the fequel, he fays, of Tiberius, that he 
embraced his grandfon, and, with a flood of tears, faid to Caius—thou 
wilt murder my dear child—and another will murder thee—Occides 
hunc tu, inquit, et te alius, 




s 






J 5 i 2 












372 


v'if* 'd' ■* *’* • ' *■' ■ •* • 

' ' --- 

' 

t i 

CHAPTER XXI. 

*r 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

m MAXIMUS, who wrote within fix years after the fall of 
Sejanus, and dedicated his work to Tiberius, informs us, ix. n, that 
Sejanus had formed a plot to feize the reins of government.—Tu vide¬ 
licet efferatce barbarian immanitate truculentior habenas R. imperii, 
quas princeps parenfque nofter falutari dextra continet, eapere potu- 
iffi ?—He alfo fays that he intended to caufe fuch diftrefs at Rome , in 
particular, as had never been experienced in that city—that all the 
Gods were interefted in the difcovery of it—that Tiberius, by divine 
monition, forefaw—divino confilio providet—the danger which threat¬ 
ened his moft excellent fervices all the world over. And he alfo adds, 
that it was no fooner known at Rome, that Tiberius had dete&ed the 
perfidy of the treacherous minifter of the author and defence of their 
fafety, than all ranks of people, in that city, immediately flew to 
crufh him. And, laftly, that they trod not only on him, but on his 
whole family. V. Maximus alfo adds, that no fooner was Sejanus dead, 

than the fame happy {late of public affairs was again reftored—Itaque 

/ 

flat pax, valent leges, fincerus privati ac publici officii tenor fervatur 






--- 
















373 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

T his is the account which V. Maximus, an eye witnefs of the tranf- 
adion, gave, in a work dedicated to Tiberius himfelf, of the fall of 
this prime-minifter. An account which plainly intimates that Sejanus 
meant to afliime power which belonged to Tiberius, that Maximus 
thought the Gods were concerned in the difcovery—that the people 
of Rome ought to be very thankful for it—that they conlidered Tibe¬ 
rius as the bell of princes, if not that they were much prejudiced 
againll Sejanus—and which feems to intimate that he fell, not by a 
formal procefs, but under the fury of an enraged populace, and that 
none fell with him but his own children—and therefore feems to ex¬ 
culpate Tiberius, who was then at Capreae, from the imputation that 

he contrived the deftrudion of his family. 

/ 

Seneca, another writer who lived at the time, fays—de tranq. vita? 
cap. ii— that the Senate arrefted him—that, on the fame day, the 
people tore him to pieces—that the Gods were witnejjes —and that there 
was not enough of him left for the hangman to draw through the Jireets. 
—Quo die ilium fenatus deduxerat, populus in frulla divilit, in quern 
quicquid congeri poterat, dll hominefque contuIerant r ex eo nihil 

4 

fuperfuit quod carnifex traheret, &c. 

The account of Seneca, we find, pretty nearly agrees with that of 
V. Maxknus. 

Let us next hear what Philo, a jewilh cotemporary, fays of the 
death of this prime-minifter. 

Philo, in his account of his Leg. to Caius, p. 7S5, F., fays, that 
Sejanus had, with much contrivance, formed a plot to introduce forne 
new fcheme or imjioftion — r,ytv.x Xuxvos co-Mvupei rw vm 9 E<Tiv.— And how 

does he fay Sejanus hoped to efted this deep laid plot?—Tcil—by ac- 

/ 

cufing the Jews of Rome falfely, as he fays—and by feeking the de- 







374 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

firu&ion of that nation—-to eQvos— that is, as he fays in the beginning of 
his work again!! Flaccus, the whole nation — av^xy to tOvos.— And why 
did he feek the deftru&ion of the Jews?—Becaufe he was perfuaded 
that they would be the only or chief protestors of the emperor when his 
life was in danger by the difajfefted, And this, it feems, by what Philo 
had immediately before faid, the Jews would, in all probability, have 
become—for he there not only fays that the people every where, even 
thofe not well affeSted to the Jews , were not in hajle to affijl any one in 
the heretical abolition of their legal rites — svXx£eis uyoy eiu xxQx tpeiriv nvos 
rxv Ih^xikuv vopinuv —he alfo fays that the fame indulgence 

was continued under Tiberius, though they of Italy were in commo¬ 
tion when Sejanus contrived the impofition. If then the Jews had, as 
Philo fays, been always tolerated by Tiberius in the exercife of their 
religious fingularities, (and that they were fo both Agrippa and Taci¬ 
tus fay,) no wonder that they were fo much attached to Tiberius— 
and, that Sejanus was fo much afraid of them. 

This is pretty nearly the fum of what Philo offers on this myfterious 
point. By which it appears that Sejanus meditated a revolution or im- 
polition of fome kind—and that he, by way of accomplifhing his pur- 
pofe, thought it neceflary to deflroy not the Jews of Rome only, but 
the whole nation of the Jews, (which, Philo himfelf allows, was then 
not only tolerated but refpe&ed every where,) beginning with tfcofe 
of Rome and Italy, as being better affe&ed to Tiberius than any other 
people, even than Romans. Under what pretence he hoped to obtain 
permiffion of his fovereign, who, it feems, was ever fond of the Jews 
and of their religion, to do it, Philo does not fay. 

Having now heard what thofe three cotemporaries fay of the caufe 
of the fall of Sejanus—let us attend to what four or five later writers 
fay of it.—And firft let us hear what Jofephus fays of it. 


375 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

Jofephus affirms, A. xviii. 7, s., that Sejanus entered into a great 
confpiracy againft his fovereign, whom he reprefents, 7, 0., as a fort 
of minor prophet—or, a foreteller of future events— Eiri( 3 a\yis yxp ^tyx- 
ov$xay\s rn ocvtov vn to Zwxvu — he alfo fays that molt of the fenators 
and freedmen confpired with him—and that the army was corrupted—• 

XXI TW (3v\yf ot itoXXoi xxi run) xirEXvQepcov 'rrpoa’iQevro, xxi to Tpxnunxov SitipQxpro. 

This confpiracy, he adds, Antonia, the mother of Livilla, difcovered. 
And in the next chapter—viz—8, £., Jofephus alfo fays, that Herod, 
the tetrarch of Galilee, was, by Agrippa, accufed to Caius, of having 
been privy to the plot of Sejanus.—Laltly, he fays, B. ii. 9, that 
Agrippa had before gone to Tiberius to accufe Herod, of, no doubt, 
difaffe&ion, and that Tiberius paid no attention to him. Indeed fo far 
does he, by what Jofephus fays, A., leem to have been from believing 
any report of this kind, that he, in the year following, fent Vitellius 
to affift Herod againft Aretas. 

t , * , . • • ■ r k 

Jofephus then, we find, is another witnefs that Sejanus confpired 
agairfft Tiberius—and with moft of the fenators and freedmen, or liber¬ 
tines. He alfo fays, that the army in general were corrupted. But 

r 

that the Jews were then remarkably attached to Tiberius, and, that 
they were, on that account, at the'mitigation of Sejanus, expelled 
from Rome, he does not fay. On the contrary, he feems to fay, that 
thofe of Galilee were fo hoftile to Tiberius as to have lided with Seja¬ 
nus. Befides he does not feem to agree with Philo as to the time when 
they were expelled, by introducing his account of it immediately after 
that of the death of our Lord. In the 3d §. he gives an account of the 
death and revival of our Lord, and the 4th §. he begins with thofe 
words — K xi vito t«j avms xpovus — and ends with xxrx rurov xpovov — where 
he propofes to fpeak of the expullion of his countrymen. Moreover, 
he fays, that the confuls not only fent 4^000 eniifted, and therefore 






376 




Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

libertine Jews, to Sardinia, an imperial province—but that they 
punifhed others for refilling, in obedience to Mofes, to enlift. Now 
the confuls, in the beginning of the year in which Sejanus perilhed, 
were Tiberius and Sejanus, and their fuffedti, when he fell, were Regu- 
lus and Trio, of whom the former was, as Tacitus and Dion fay, in 
the interefl of Tiberius, and the latter in the intereft of Sejanus.— 
Laftly, in his account of the expuliion of the Jews, he neither inti¬ 
mates that the confpiracy of Sejanus then took place—nor, in his ac¬ 
count of the confpiracy of Sejanus, does he intimate that Sejanus had 
any thing to do with the expuliion of the Jews—on the contrary, he 
fays, that Saturninus, a confular man, complained to Tiberius of the 
mifconduCt of three or four vagabond Jews, who pretended to be 
Rabbies, towards Fulvia, his wife, who, it feems, was a profelyte, 
and by that means only procured the expuliion of all the Jews from 
Rome. 

Jofephus then, we find, appears to have contradicted all his prede- 
ceflors not a little—the two Roman writers, by faying, that Antonia 
difcovered the confpiracy—and his own countryman, in every other 
particular. 

Let us next hear what Juvenal fays was the caufe of his fall. 

Juvenal, who it may not be amifs to obferve, appears to have been 
born within a very few years after the death of Tiberius, in his xth 
fatire, fpeaks of the vaft power and of the unexpected fall of Sejanus. 
His fall he feems to attribute to treafonable practices, for he fpeaks of 
him as the enemy of Caefar—Caefaris hoftem—and as having fought 
the extinction of the fecure old age of the prince—fi opprefta foret 
fecura feneCtus Principis. He alfo deferibes the very different beha¬ 
vior of the Roman populace towards him, juft before and after it took 
place.- Juft before his fall, he fays, every body worlhipped him, but 


\ 


I 


377 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

no fooner was he executed, and his body drawn by the executioner , than 
all rejoiced at it, and haftened to infult his dead body, as It lay on the 
bank of the Tyber , and even without knowing the caufe of his fall— 
for, at v. 68, &c. he reprefents an inhabitant of Rome as expreffing 
the inveteracy of his diflike to him while living, and as queflioning 
his neighbour concerning the caufe &c. of his unexpe&ed death—and, 
at v. 71, he reprefents the neighbour as incapable of giving him any 
other fatisfadlory information on the point, but that a long epiflle had 
arrived from the fecure emperor, furrounded by a fet of Chaldeans at 
Capreae. 

By this teflimony of Juvenal it appears that he took it for granted, 
though it was not publicly known at Rome a little after he fell what 
was the nature of his offence, that it was of a treafonable nature—that 
it was underflood at Rome that a prolix epiftle of Tiberius to the 
Senate was the caufe of his death—and, that his body, after having 
been dragged by the executioner through the flreets of Rome, lay on 
the bank of the Tyber, where it was infulted by the populace. By 
this it alfo appears that Tiberius would not take any flep againfl Seja¬ 
nus before he had apprifed the Senate of his mifcondudl. 

. / v ' T / 

Juvenal afterwards adds—Peritpros audio multos—by which he 
feems to intimate that Sejanus fell alone. He alfo feems to fay that 
the people were almofl afraid to converfe with each other on the fub- 
je6L 

____Hi fermones 

Tunc de Sejano: fecreta haec murmura vulgi. 

Let us now hear what Suetonius fays of this affair. 

lie affirms, iii. 65, that Sejanus, who, he fays, was one of the 
twenty privy counfellors of Tiberius, had entered into a confpiracy 


1 







378 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

with others to effe£t a revolution. Who thofe accomplices were—and, 
by what means he intended to accomplilh his nefarious purpofe, Sueto- 
nius does not fay here. But, hi his life of Caius, chap. 30, he feems 
to fay that moll of the Senate were privy to it—for he there fays that 
Caius ufed often to inveigh againfl all the fenators alike, as having 
been the clients of Sejanus; and the accufers ol his mother and breth¬ 
ren—Sxpe in cunftos pariter fenatores, ut Sejani clientes, aut—matris 
ac fratrum fuorum delatores inve&us eft. And, in the life of Vitel- 
lius, chapter 2, he fays, that P. Vitellius, after he had difcharged the 
praetorfhip, was apprehended as a confpirator with Sejanus. The time 
when Tiberius fufpe&ed him, he fays, was juft after the death of Livia, 
and juft before his own laft confulate—for Tiberius, he fays, faw that 
his birth-day was kept publicly—and Dion fays, 1 . 58, p. 622, A., that 
the Senate, after the death of Livia, made a decree for that purpofe. 
And the time when he began to contrive his deftruflion (for fuch, it 
feems, was the power of his minifter, and fuch his own dread of 
tumults, that he could not do it fpeedily) was juft before his laft con¬ 
fulate. The manner in which he accomplifhed his deftruftion he pro¬ 
ceeds next to defcribe, and prefaces it with this obfervation—viz—that 
he did not do it by any princely means, but by craft and fubtilty— 
aftu magis ac dolo, quam principis majeftate—for, firft, he, fubjoins 
Suetonius, diffident and apprehenlive of tumults as he was, Inftead of 
feizing him, difmifted him from Capreas to Rome, where moft of the 
other confpirators, it feems, were—and, in order to make him his 
colleague in the confullhip. Having fucceeded in tills, he next gave 
him caufe to hope to be allied to the royal family, (as, by the account 
of Tacitus, iv. 40, he had done feveral years before,) which alliance, 
appears, by what Tacitus fays, vi. 8, of the fpeech of M. Terentius to 
the Senate, when he was accufed of having been intimate with Seja¬ 
nus, a&ually took place—Non enim Sejanum Vulfinienfem, fed Clau« 


379 


\ 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

diae et Julias domus partem, quas adfinitate occupaverat, tuum Cafar 
gcnerum, tui confulatus focium, tua officia in republica capeflentem 
cob.bamus—he alfo gave him reafon to expert the tribunitial authority. 
And after having done all this, he unexpectedly criminated him in a 
paltry wretched epiftle to that very Senate, who, as Caius ufed often 
to fay, were all the creatures of Sejanus—and who, as Jofephus fays, 
were moftly confpirators with him—who, as Tacitus fays, confidered 
him as the only way to preferment—and who, as Dion fays, had made 
a decree that his birth-day fhould be publicly kept, and had been in the 
habit of paying him all forts of honors, not excepting even divine. And 
in the fame epiftle, he, adds Suetonius, defired the fathers to fend one 
of the confuls, and without naming him, (though Regulus only was his 
friend,) with a guard to conduct him, a folitary old man, into their 
prefence, when, at the very time, he had, fays Suetonius, made pre¬ 
parations for quiting the country, and had ufed means to procure the 
earlieft information concerning the fuccefs of his epiftle. 

By this account of Suetonius, it appears that Sejanus, after the death 
of Livia, meditated, with certain leading men of Rome, a revolution 
—that Tiberius fufpedted it while Sejanus was at Capreas with him—• 
that is, juft before they were colleagues in the conlulfhip—that Tibe¬ 
rius, crafty and fearful as he was, did not detain him at Capreae, but 
difmifted him to Rome—that he then firft made him his conful, and 
then again gave him reafon to expedt to be allied to the imperial 
family, and to be inverted with the tribunitial authority, and, if we 
may believe Tacitus, actually fulfilled his intimation by making him 
his fon-in-law—that he did not attempt to deftroy him till nearly eight 
months after he fufpedted him, for Sejanus was not put to death till 
the middle of Odtober, at which time Trio and Regulus were confuls 
r- that he then did it, not by his imperial power, but by writing to the 


Kkk 2 









380 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus, 

Senate, who, Suetonius himfelf, as well as others, acknowledges, were 
moftly the adherents of Sejanus. And, lafily, that Tiberius, diffident, 
fearful of tumults, ready to leave the country, and unwilling to leave 
Caprese, as he was, (for, he fays, he did not move out of the village 
in which he refided for nine months after,*) with much craftinefs and 
fubtilty, requeued to be conduced, by one of the confuls and a guard 

of foldiers, from Capreae to the Senate houfe.f 

\ 

Suetonius, it fliould be obferved, had before, chapter 48, faid that 
the praetorian guards remained all the while firmly attached to Tibe¬ 
rius, and that he handfomely rewarded them for their fidelity—praeter- 
quain fingula millia denariorum prcetorianis, quod fe Sejano non ac- 
commodaffent. He alfo fays, immediately after, in the fame chapter, 
that he rewarded the legions in Syria for having refufed to ere£t the 
fiandard of Sejanus. And, to his account of the manner in which he 
accompliflied the definition of Sejanus, he has fubjoined what looks 
like a proof that mofi, if not all the legions of Italy, were firmly at¬ 
tached to him—Aptatis etiam navibus ad quafcunque legiones medi- 

1 % 

tabatur fugam. If then Tiberius was fo well ferved by his life-guards, 
and by mofi of the legions both in Italy and out of it, and was fo fear¬ 
ful of tumults, and fo apprehenfive about the refult, as to think of 
flying himfelf, and of leaving Drufus to difpute the fovereignty with 
his new uncle Sejanus, why fliould he be fuppofed to have ated fo 
imprudently as to fend Sejanus to Rome ?—And then to have heaped 

* Verum et oppressa conjuratione Sejani, nihilo securior aut constantior, 
per novem proximos menses non egressus est villa quse vacatur Jovis. 

+ Tiberius tamen ludibria seriis permiscere solitus egit gratias benevolenliae 
patrum: sed quosomitti posse? quosdeligi? semperne eosdem an subinde alios? 
et honoribus perfunctos, an juvenes? privatos an e majistratibus? quam deinde 
speciem fore, sumentium in limine curia? gladios? ueque sibi vitam tanti, si 
annis tegenda foret. T. Ann. vi. 2. 




381 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

fuch honors on him?—Or, to have criminated him to the Senate, by 
an epiftle?—Or, to have requeued the Senate to fend a guard to con¬ 
duct his aged felf from Caprece to the Senate? 

Such is the unfatisfaftory account which Suetonius has given of this 
affair. 

Let us now hear what Tacitus fays of it: 

The account which Tacitus gave in his v. book, where he treats of 
the tranfaftions of the year in which Tiberius and Sejanus were con- 
fuls, of the caufe of the fall of Sejanus, is unfortunately lofl—but 
though this is loft, yet he appears to have faid enough in his iv. v. and 
vi. books to convince us that Sejanus was accufed of confpiring either 
againft the ftate, or againft his fovereign. But of whatever he was ac- 

I 

cufed, it feems, by what he fays, A. iv. i, his fall was as detrimental 
to the welfare of Rome as his Jirof/ieriiy had been —cujus pari exitio 
floruit, ceciditque. 

In the iv. 3, he fays of him, that he, to make way for his treache¬ 
rous defign, contrived, nine years before, the death of Drufus—and 
that he enticed Livilla, the wife of Drufus and the daughter of Anto¬ 
nia, by the hope of becoming his wife and a partner of the fovereignty, 
to fecond his murderous defign—ad conjugii fpem, confortium regni, 

r 

et necem mariti impulit. And though Tacitus would have it thought 
that Sejanus murdered Drufus to fecure the government, yet he fays, 
iv. 59, that he gave the moft unqueftionable proof of his regard for 
Tiberius, by faving his life at the hazard of his own. But what ?— 
Could Sejanus have thought, that Livilla, the wife of the heir-apparent 
Drufus, the mother of the twin fons, and the aunt of Drufus, Nero, 
and Caius, would have exchanged her great profpeft of becoming the 
mother of the emperor for fo diftionorable a mode of proceeding*—or, 









382 


Of the cause of tlic fall of Sejanus, 

hs Tacitus fays, iv. 3—ut pro honedis et praefentibus, flagitiofa et in- 
certa expe&aret—and at the expence of injuring the claims of her 
own fons and that of her nephews?—This, if we may believe Tacitus, 
he did—but could not make good his promife, becaufe Tiberius would 
not give his confent. And though he was, as Tacitus fays, iv. 39, 
mad for women; and Livilla too, as he fays, iv. 29, committed adul¬ 
tery in her widowhood; and though he had, as he alfo fays, perfuaded 
Tiberius to retire from the fatigues of government to Capreae, under 
an expe&ation that he fhould have the aged monarch in his power, 
yet he never made the lead attempt to cut him off for four or five 
years. 

In the v. 8, Tacitus fays, that P Vitellius, the paymader of the 
forces, was, before the expiration of the year in which Sejanus fuffer- 
ed, accufed, before the Senate , of having not only encouraged revolu¬ 
tionary proje&s—or, as Suetonius fays, vii. 2, of having been a con- 
fpirator with Sejanus—inter Sejani confcios—but of having embezzled 
the military treafure, and even of having applied it to fupport innova¬ 
tion. If he was guilty of peculation it might be eafily made to appear, 
and he deferved to be duly punifhed for it. And if he applied the 
public money to the word of purpofes he deferved to be feverely 
punifhed. What then was his punifhment ?—He was, fay both Taci¬ 
tus and Suetonius, placed in the cudody of his brother! But was the 
Senate the proper body to take cognizance of this offence ?—Of ind- 
diae in republicam—they, no doubt, were. But were they fo of mat¬ 
ters relating to the military ?—Does not Tacitus fay, vi. 3, that Tibe¬ 
rius was violently angry with Junius Gallio for making, in the begin¬ 
ning of the year following, a motion refpefling a new privilege for the 
difeharged life-guards, and imperioufly demanding of him, as if prefent 
-—quid illi cum militibus—and as a&ing like a fatellite of Sejanus ? 




r 


383 


/ 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

In the 9th, he fays, that the Senate, after the death of Sejanus, and 
when the popular fury had fubfided, and moil people were fatished, 
proceeded againil the reft of his children—placitum poilhac ut in relh 
quos Sejani liberos adverteretur. Now as he had before apprifed us, 
iv. 3, that Sejanus had three children only by Apicata, one only can 
have been put to death with Sejanus. 

In the nth chapter, he fays, that the two confuls, Regulus and 

Trio, who had been at variance a long while, became, before the end 

/ 

oi the year in which Sejanus fell, publicly hoilile. Trio, in the Senate 
houfe, reflected on Regulus for having been backward in opposing the 
tools of Sejanus—ut fegnem Regulum ad opprimendos Sejani minif- 
tros. Regulus repelled the charge, and accufed Trio of having been 
an accomplice in the confpiracy—ut noxium conjurationis. 

In the vi. book, he informs us how the effedts of Sejanus were dif- 

, * 1 

pofed of; and then, in feveral places, of the trials of thofe who had 
been either his alfociates or accomplices ; and then, in one or two, 
of the punilhments of fome of them. 

In chapter 2, he informs us that the effects of Sejanus had originally 
been depofited in the treafury—that Tiberius had caufed them to be 
taken from thence as confifcated—and that, a month or two after the 
death of Sejanus, a flrong party in the Senate contended that the for¬ 
feited effects ought to be returned to the treafury—et bona Sejani ab« 
lata cerario, ut in fifcum cogerentur tanquam referret. 

Chapter 8, he reprefents M. Terentius, who was accufed, before 
the Senate, of intimacy with Sejanus, as making a diflindtion between 

1 

thofe who had been privy to his recent plot—and thofe who had only 

1 

fought his patronage—and as exculpating the latter, by the obferva- 
tion that Tiberius had himfelf. in a manner, fandlioned the pradlice* 








SSI 


/ 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

by the very great honors which he had conferred on him—viz—-by 
firft making him joint commander with his father of the life-guards— 

i 

then pnefedt both of the city and the army—then his colleague in the 
confulfhip— and, laftly, by permitting him to become, by marriage, a 
part of both the Claudian and Julian families, and his own fon-in-law 
—and even his deputy in the management of public bulinefs. And 
again he reprefents him as making the fame diflindtion in the conclu- 
lion of his fpeech as he had before made—viz—let plots againfl the 
ftate, or againfl the life of the emperor, be punifhed as they ought, 
but as for fociety with any friend of Caefar let it not be blamed. 

Chapter 9, he fays, that the fathers were all unanimous in acquit-* 
ting him—and, moreover, that they were alfo unanimous in fenten- 
cing his accufers, for this and other things, either to be put to death ot¬ 
to be banijhed . 

In the 191I1 chapter, he fays, that Tiberius, in the courfe of the 
year following—viz—the fecond after the death of Sejanus, ordered 
all thofe that were imprifoned for afiociating with Sejanus to be put 
to death—irritatufque fuppliciis cundlos qui carcere attinebantur ac- 
cufati focietatis cum Sejano, necari jubet. Of whom, it feems, by what 
follows, there was no fmall number of every fex, age, and condition.^ 
Jacuit immenfa flrages: omnis fexus, omnis aetas; inluftres, ignobiles, 
&c. But were people of both fexes, of every age and of ignoble con¬ 
dition, admitted to be confpirators with Sejanus?—Or, were they merely 
officiates with him ?—If they were partifans in the confpiracy could 
Sejanus have contrived to keep his treafonable purpofe a fecret?— 
Would he have thought that women and boys, and people of no rank 
or character, would be fit to be entrufled with fo important a fecret ? 

* If so many persons were conspirators with Sejanus, how is it that V. M, 
and S. tell us that the people tore him in pieces? 


385 


l 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

Or, rather, would he, after having been fo exceedingly faftidious as 
Tacitus reprefents him to have been, iv. 74, in the year 14, have con- 
defcended, in the year 17, when he had been exalted to the acme of 
his wilhes, and Tiberius was nearly in the 80th year of his age, to 
aflociate with fuch perfons?—And if they were not confpirators, but 
only humble expe&ants, why were they, after the acquittal of Teren- 
tius, and the condemnation of his accufers to deaths and to banifh.- 
nients, detained in prifon?—-And, the year after, barbaroufly murdered 
for it—and by Tiberius ?—Did he not fpare this fame Terentius ?—• 
Did he not approve the decree of the Senate concerning the fentence 
of the accufers?—And was he not greatly applauded for it?—And not 
only for that, but for having ordered all the accufers to be put to 
death in one day ?—Dion, we know, fpeaking of the accufation of 
this fame Terentius, and of the fentence pronounced on him, and them, 
by the Senate, fays, 1 . 58, p. 633, D. — 01s v.xi o T ifispios crvyxxnQiro, kxi 
i'm thtu /*£> smvtiTo .—And of the carnage which Tiberius caufed to be 
made immediately after the death of Sejanus, he fays—“ but amidft 
all this fo great cruelty, he (Tiberius) feemed to be pofil-fied of fame 
philanthropy — -e$o%s n r.xi (pi\x-; 9 fu 7 ?£v<Txa 9 xi —And wherein?—fcil—-In 
fparing Cafiianus, Lucius Sejanus, the praetor, (who, he obferves, had 
caufed the infirmity of his age to be expofed both on the ftage and in 
the flreets of Rome,) and Marcus Terentius. And again, fpeaking of 
the accufers of Terentius and of the fentence pronounced on them by 
the Senate, he fays —-xxt 0 Tiotptos awy.xrsQero a^an —-for which, fubjoins 
he, he was applauded —xxt tnu m?u <xsv tmniro —and, continues he, he 
was much more applauded, for having caufed all the foremoft accu¬ 
fers to be put to death in one day — xxi ixx'Ki^x on ms t'ViGoyrorxrus ruv 
rxs Kxrvyoptxs r rroiV[j.tr J j)> xnroQxniv zv (mx v^px EKfA-stw—-to which execution 

Tacitus feems to allude vi. 30. 







Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

Chapter 23, Tacitus fays, as Suetonius alfo does, that Tiberius gave 
Macro orders that if Sejanus fhould have recourfe to arms, he fhould 
liberate Drufus, the nephew of his wife Livilla, and fet him over the 
people. 

Laftly, chap. 30, Tacitus fays, that Lentulus Gsetulicus, the com¬ 
mander of the army in Upper Germany, was, about the beginning of 
the 22d year of Tiberius, accufed by Albudius, (one of the accufers of 
Livilla,) his once legionary praefeft and pail aedile, of having formed 
a family connexion with Sejanus. To this charge he is faid to have 
replied by letter to Tiberius, pretty nearly as Terentius did to the 
Senate. The refult, fays Tacitus, was, that Tiberius took no notice 
of it, but continued on the fame terms of intimacy with him as before, 
and even baniflied Albudius from the city. 

The fum of what we learn, from detached paflages of Tacitus, con¬ 
cerning the fall of Sejanus, feems to be nearly this—that Sejanus, after 
he had put away his wife, by whom he had three children, perfuaded 
Livilla, the lifter of Germanicus, and the wife of Drufus, the prince 
regent, to be an acceflary to the death of her liufband, in hope of 
marrying Sejanus, and of partaking with him in the government—that 
he, four years after, at the rifque of his own life, preferved that of 
Tiberius—that he, by the confent of Tiberius, eight years after, and 
juft before his fall, married her—that he was then poftefted of all 
power, and Tiberius in his 74th year—that he was thought to have 
contrived the death of Tiberius—that he, though intolerably proud, 
confpired with all forts of perfons for that purpofe—that he was put 
to death for it, with one of his children, but whether with or without 
. trial he does not fay—that two of his children were, before the end of 
the year, alfo put to death for it—that none of his accomplices, if he 
had any, were put to death with him—that the chief of his accom- 


387 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

plices was not punifhed—that his effects were firft depofited in the 
treafury and then confifcated—that, in the fecond year after, an im- 
menfe number of perfons, of all forts, were put to death for it—and, 
laftly, that L.* Gsetulicus was, four years after, charged with having 
betrothed his daughter to a fon of Sejanus. 

Having now collected all that Tacitus fays of the offence of Seja¬ 
nus, for which he fell, let us next proceed to obferve whether he fays 
Livilla was an accomplice with him in it. 

If Livilla was, as Tacitus fays, induced, by the hope of marrying 
Sejanus and of fharing the government with him, to affift in the mur¬ 
der of the heir-apparent, may we not expert that the was alfo con¬ 
cerned in this plot againft her aged uncle and father-in-law ?—Of her 
having been concerned in it Tacitus (though he fays, vi. 2, that fhe 
died about the fame time,) does not fay. Indeed, by his filence con¬ 
cerning the difpofition of her property, and his report concerning that 
of Sejanus, (for had fhe confpired with Sejanus would not her property 
have been confifcated as well as his ?) may we not almoft conclude 
that flte knew nothing of his defign?—But we are not confined to 
negative proof, for it appears by what he there fays of her—viz—that 
effigies of her were ftill exifting—that fhe could not have been con¬ 
cerned in it—for furely no effigies of her would have been permitted 
to remain, if flic had been put to death for high-treafon. It alfo ap¬ 
pears that certain mal-practices, in which fhe had been engaged, had 
been difeovered firree her death, and that, as fhe could not be then 
punifhed for thofe practices, fevere reflections were made on thofe 

* Query—May not this Lentulus have been the same person as Dion speaks 
of as having been a conspirator with Sejanus— w t'lrifiuXsvo-xvms '--against 
Tiberius ? 


L 1 1 2 





388 




Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

effigies which were intended to perpetuate her memory. What thofe 
mal-pra&ices were, which came to light after her death, may be col¬ 
lected from what he again fays of her, vi. 29—viz—that Mamercus 
Scaurus was, more than two years after, charged with having commit¬ 
ted adultery with her, and with having frequented, with her too, no 
doubt, the facred rites of the Magi. Though of adultery, with any 
one, before the death of her hufband Drufus, Tiberius himfelf, by the 
report of Tacitus, iv. and vi. 46, clearly acquitted her. Now if thefe 
were her only offences the appears to have had nothing to do with the 
treafon of Sejanus. 

But does it not appear flill more evident that fhe was no way con¬ 
cerned in it, by what Jofephus and Dion fay of her mother Antonia, 
and Suetonius of her brother Claudius?—The two firfl mentioned fay 
that Antonia difeovered the treachery of Sejanus, and the lafl, that 
Claudius w r as deputed by the knights to congratulate on the occafion? 
But of this more hereafter. 

Dion, who fays, p. 628, that Apicata, indignant at feeing the bodies 
of her children, whom, he fays, Tiberius had caufed to be put to 
death, firfl informed him that his fon had been poifoned by Sejanus 
and Li villa, it may not be amifs to obferve, alfo fays, in the fame page, 
that Livilla was alive after the difeovery of the murder—that Tiberius, 
who, as Suetonius fays, iii. 62, would afterwards fpare nobody, and 
was convinced that his grand fon was illegitimate, would have forgiven 
her, but that Antonia, her own mother, who, 4s V. Maximus and 
others fay, was a mofl exemplary woman, oppofed it. Dion further 
fays of Livilla, that fhe flarved herfelf. 

Let us, in the lafl place, hear what Dion fays of the greatnefs and 
fajl of Sejanus. 


389 


\ 



Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

Of the vaft power of Sejanus, Dion fays, 1 . 57, p. 617, C., that the 
confuls and— eAa oyt^ot -—eminent men, ufed, before the death of Drufus, 
to wait on him, at day-break, and then ufed to lay before him the 
petitions which they meant to prefent to Tiberius for themfelves—- 
and, to communicate with him the common things about which Tibe¬ 
rius ought to give refponfes. And again, in the fame page, he fays, 
that Sejanus, not content with ail this power, determined on the death 
of Drufus, in hope that he fhould get the entire control of his aged 
lire. So great indeed, he fays, 1 . 57, p. 619, B., was his power, that 
Cremutius Cordus was compelled to lay hands on himfelf merely be- 
caufe he had offended him — on rw Isixvco irfoa-Expacnv. —Tacitus fays, iv. 14, 
that two of his clients accufed Cordus. And, 1 . 58, p. 622, A., he 
fays, that even the Senate, after the death of Livia, made a decree 
that his birth-day fhould be kept—and that they and all the reft of the 
Romans erected an unufual number of ftatues to him—-that they fent 
deputies to him as well as to Tiberius—that they offered up vows for 
his profperity as well as for Tiberius—and that they facrificed to both, 
and fwore by their fortunes. 

All this Dion fays of the omnipotence of Sejanus, as if it was ob¬ 
tained by univerfal confent. 

* % ^ 

Again, I. 58, p. 623, B., he fays, that Tiberius knowing— paQu *— 
that the Senate and others looked up to Sejanus as emperor, and down 
upon himfelf as nobody, was afraid that they would make him em¬ 
peror—and then goes on to fay that Sejanus entirely won over to him 
all the body guards , and mojl of the fenators , and that he, moreover, 
had the addrels fo to pleafe thofe about Tiberius, as to bring himfelf 
acquainted with every thing faid or done at Caprece, and to keep Tibe¬ 
rius, though, as both Tacitus, iv. 1, xi. 3, and Suetonius fays, an over¬ 
match for him in craftinefs, in ignorance of every thing done at Rome. 


> 




390 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

And what Hep does he fay Tiberius then took ?—foil—He, notwith- 
ftanding he was afraid the Senate would make him emperor, made him 
conful, and called him the partaker of his cares, and, in his letters to 
the Senate and to the people, “ my Sejanus.”—Wherefore, continues 
he, the deceived and believers— xnrxru^oi kxi tti^evovtss —affixed every 
where tables of brafs infcribed with their joint names, and placed in 
the Theatres gilded chairs of date for both of them. The Senate too, 
he fays, decreed them a quinquennial confulate, and offered facrifices 
to the ffatues of Sejanus as well as to thofe of Tiberius, though, as 
Dion himfelf had previoudy faid, he had before publifhed an ediCt 
forbidding any one to worlhip him. 

Dion next goes on to fay, that Sejanus, notwithdanding all this 

affectation of popularity, caufed many of the nobles to be put to death, 

and among them Caius Rufus Geminius, by accudng him of im/ucty 

to Tiberius before the Senate—an offence, of which, he had before faid 

himfelf, Tiberius took no notice. Rufus, fays he, was tried for it, 

and, before fentence was paffed, retired to his own houfe, and when 

the qusedor arrived to tell him his doom, he dedroyed himfelf. Publia 

Prifca, the wife of Rufus, fays he, was alfo accufed before the Senate 

of fomething, and by Sejanus, no doubt, though he had, as Dion elfe- 

where obferves, promifed marriage to all the married ladies of Rome. 

The refult was that die too dedroyed herfelf, and in the very Senate- 

« 

houfe. 

In the next page—viz— 1 . 58, p. 623, E., Dion fays, that Sejanus 
was fo great in his own conceit and in the plenitude of his power that 
he appeared like an autocrat, while Tiberius appeared like the govern¬ 
or of an infignificant idand—that he was even attended by the body 
guards— $opv(pcpoi —when he went to the Capitol. And, in the next page, 
1 . $8, 624, D., he fays, that the overdoers— xxrxxofus —even dvore by 




391 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

his fortune— r-nv rs Tvy^rjv avm xxrotxophs u^wucur —and addreflcd him not 
only as colleague to Tiberius in the confulfhip, but as his equal in all 
power. 

Having thus deicribed his power as increaftng till the year when he 
was conful, and as being then unlimited, Dion next proceeds to de- 
lcribe his rapid fall. He fays, p. 624, D., that if any God had, in the 
beginning of the year in which Tiberius and Sejanus were confuls, 
roretold what was to happen before the end of that year, nobody 
would have believed it.* Early in that year, continues Dion, Tiberius, 
who (and it deferves to be particularly noticed as being rather contra- 

f 

di&ory to.what he had before faid in the page immediately preceding 
B ) could not be ke/it in ignorance of any thing about him —T iQtfios ch zyvoti 
'xsy «05v c 71 ruv kxt xvtov —perceiving in what eftimation his minifter was 
held by the people, determined to cut him off. But if, as Dionhimfelf 
fays, he had caufed him to be fo efteemed, why (hould he have deter¬ 
mined to cut him off for being fo efteemed?—And how could he have 
hoped to accomplifh his purpofe ?*— In the fame page, E., lie fays, 
that Tiberius being aware that he could not venture to do it openly, 
contrived to do it in fuch a manner as aftonifhed every body, not ex¬ 
cepting Sejanus. And then, in the'remainder of the fame page, he 
proceeds to point out the fteps which Tiberius took in order to leften 
the public opinion of the great power of his confular colleague, and 
which, he fays, were effectual. The popular opinion of his poten¬ 
tiality being thus leftened, it was, fhortly after, confiderably more fo, 
by obferving a prodigy or two, which happened to certain ftatues of 
Sejanus, which were the objects of adoration. 

* Suetonius says, iii. 65, that Tiberius, before he entered his 7 . consulate, 
knew that Sejanus was meditating a revolution. 












392 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus, 

Tiberius having, in confequence of what he had obferved, taken 
thofe fteps, and being confident of the afliftance of the Senate (though 
it was, as both Jofephus and Dion fay, devoted, by favors received, 
to Sejanus) and of the people, aflailed him — (axQuv rxvrx o T iQspios, xxt 
Qxpcryiaxs us xxi rov ^vfxov xxt tyiv (3ts\r)v crvfx[A.x^iss e | e < v , ETFi^eip-ncrev xvru — 

p. 626, B. C.—And how did he contrive to do it?—Did he fend an 
officer with a company of armed men to fecure him in his own houfe? 
Far, very far from it.—For though Laco, the captain of the night 
watch, met him, as foon as it was day , on the way to the Senate, yet 
he, fays Dion, did not apprehend him, but permitted him to take, as 
ufual, his feat among his friends in the Senate. How then did Tibe-£ 
rius contrive the matter?—Why he, in the plenitude of his power and 
of his infidioufnefs, wrote a tedious unconne&ed epiftle to thofe very 
fathers, who were unanimous in deifying and almofl in confpiring with 
him, in which he fometimes commended him, fometimes criminated 

jr 

him, though his co-partner in divinity, but of what Dion does not 
fay—no doubt, of fome myfterious offence; for, notwithflanding he 
was confident of the co-operation of the Senate and the people, he was 
afraid to write, in plain terms, of his execution, Icjl there Jhould be a 
tumult on that account — xvnxpvs yxp uiroQxniv xvrov 0 T i^spios « 'TTpocnTx^sv . a-/ 
on ux. eCbAeto, xX>1 on {jlv> rxpxyyt ns sx runs yirnrxt — but, as Dion 

wifely obferves, that he ought to be confined. Towards the end of it, 
fays Dion, he alfo obferved that they ought to proceed againfl two 
fenators the friends of Sejanus.* And without faying for what offence, 
Fjiough to have alarmed all the other confpirators, and to have made 
them think of their own fafety. 

* It is remarkable that Dion has not told us the names of those two friends 
of Sejanus, nor what they had done to offend the emperor.—Of BIjesus, the 
uncle of Sejanus, whom Tiberius afterwards deprived of the priest-hood, Taci¬ 
tus, we know, says, v. 7 —in Blassura malta foedaque incusavit. 


393 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

After fome of the multifarious contents of this incoherent epiftle 
had been read, continues Dion, the friends of Sejanus, who fat near 
him, began to defert him, and the praetors and tribunes of the people 
to furround him to prevent his efcape, and making an infurre£tion.— 
And no fooner was the whole epiftle read, than the whole body of the 
Senate, who had hut jujl before joined in adoring him , and moft of whom 
were then in confjiiracy with him , without knowing that he was accufed 
of any thing fjiecific , with one confent , began to utter exclamations and 
maledictions. The Senate then, fays Dion, perceiving that none of the 
guards were near to protect him, and, in order to gratify the people , im- 
mediately, without a trial and without fufFering him to fpeak for him- 
felf, proceeded to condemn him, and Regulus, with the reft of the 
magiftrates, conducted him to prifon. On the way the commonalty 
vociferated, on account of thofe that had, by his means, perifhed—• 
a.'iroXujXorni —and mocked him for thofe things which he had hoped—* 

But what ?—Did the Senate, loaded as they had been by him with 
favors, and confpirators as moft of them were with him, and without 
knowing what Tiberius had to fay againft him, indeed manifeft fo 
much rancour towards him?—And did they, in compliance with the 

% i 

whim of the people, commit him, without any fpecific accufation, to 
prifon, and as already condemned ?—And did they, if they fuppofed 
that Tiberius meant to accufe him of a defign againft the government, 

» 

commit him alone?—That they did commit any other with him, Dion 
does not fay, though he fays, that Tiberius, towards the end of the 
epiftle, obferved, that two fenators, who were his intimates, ought to 
be imprifoned —$vo rs rcov uksiu[asv&jv oi x.o\xa9rivxt y.xi sv (fipxpx 'ysvEtf-" 

Qxi Se/v e:\E7Ey,— Ynd does it not appear, by this treatment of Sejanus, 


M m m 












Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

that the Senate was raofl obfequious to the will of Tiberius, and that 
the commonalty of Rome were, without underftanding the nature of 
the alledged offence, much exafperated againfl: Sejanus, and, if for re¬ 
volutionary praftices, does it not prove that they muft have been well 
pleafed with the government of Tiberius?—Indeed can we fuppofe that 
they would have approved of fuch praftices as long as a fon ofGerma- 
nicus was alive?—Does not Dion himfelf fay, p. 625, E., that Tibe¬ 
rius, by making Caius a priefl and by fhewing figns of inclination 
to make him his fuccellor, alarmed Sejanus ?—Do not Suetonius and 
Tacitus fay that Tiberius gave orders, in cafe Sejanus fhould caufe an 
infurreflion, to liberate Drufus?—Does not Tacitus tell us that a 
counterfeit Drufus met with, at the very fame time, fupport in moil 
places, and expefled the fame even in Italy ? 

Hitherto, it feems, the Senate had proceeded not only without evi¬ 
dence but without hearing any thing in defence of the culprit.—And 
what did they do next?—Quickly after— v^pov « —they fentenced 

him to be put to death: for which, fays Dion, 1. 59, p. 652, A., Caius, 
in a laudatory fpeech on Tiberius, reproached them.—But had not 
Tiberius, feveral years before, decreed that no one fhould be put to 

death within ten days after his condemnation ?—No matter for that. 

* 

The populace, without knowing that he had committed any offence, 
dragged his body through the flreets three days: and the Senate, not 
content with having proceeded fo precipitately in the execution of 
Sejanus, condemned and executed his children alfo, even a girl be¬ 
trothed to a fon of Claudius; and, as V. Maximus fays, the populace 
trod them alfo under foot. But, fays Dion, 1. 58, p. 633, A., Tibe¬ 
rius, who does not appear, even by what Dion himfelf fays, to have 
given any order for the trial of Sejanus, and certainly not for his exe¬ 
cution, and does appear to have hinted that two only of his fenatorial 
relatives fhould be taken into cuflody, then (783) fpared certain others 


V 


395 

Of the cause of the fall of Scjanus . 

though related to him— Tore cle b^bio-xto y.Ev xxi xXXw tivcovj xxiroi ru> 'Zvjixym 
uxstcjfMtvm .—Now if, as Dion fays, Tiberius had not given any order 
for the trial of his prime-minifter, nor any for his execution, and if, 
as Dion alfo fays, he only hinted that no more than two of his fena- 
torial relatives ought to be taken into cuftody, with what propriety 
could Dion have faid that Tiberius, in the year following, fpared his 
relatives?—who were thofe relatives?— That his wife deftroyed her- 
felf, foon after the fall of Sejanus, Dion himfelf fays;—that the reft of 
his children were deftroyed, by the Senate, before the end of the year, 
Tacitus, we find, fays;—that his uncle, Blsefus, though accufed, by 
Tiberius, of many and fcandalous things, when Sejanus fell, was con¬ 
tinued in the prieft-hood two years after, Tacitus alfo fays;—that L. 
Sejanus, the praetor, was alfo fpared, even though he had, but the 
year after his brother had been fo unjuftly and fo cruelly ufed, been 
fo unaccountably indifereet as to expofe publicly, not the moral or 
religious enormities of his prince, but a fingle perfonal defeft, natural 
to moft men of his age, Dion moreover teftifies. 

But though we find thofe relatives only mentioned as fpared, may 
not his very aged father have been then alive ?—and alfo fpared ?—if 
not honored with an office of the gfeateft truft ?—We know that he 
was, not many years before, alive, and the governor of Egypt, and of 
his death we have not any account, neither have we of his return from 
his praefe&ure. Let us then not think it ufelefs to endeavour to get 
fome information on this point, becaufe, if it can be made to appear 

that his father was alfo fpared, it may help us to form a little more 

» 1 • 

decifive opinion whether Tiberius is likely to have caufed Sejanus to 
be put to death— and, for having been guilty of treachery towards 
himfeff. 

> T 

Mm m 2 


\ 



396 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

Bui, the learned will be ready to afk, how can any one expe£l to 
obtain any information on this point?—Not improbably, by conlider- 
ing whether Strabo, the geographer, may not have been the praefefl 
of Egypt. If it fhould appear that he prelided over that country, he, 
we prefume, mull have prelided over it after the cities of Alia had been 
re-built, and, feemingly, after the year 780—that is, in the latter part 
not only of his own life but in that of the life of Tiberius alfo—for, we 
know, that he, in the lalt book, gives a geographical defcription of 
Egypt, and, in the courfe of it, frequently calls that country, in a cer¬ 
tain fenfe, our country: and we alfo know that he mull have written 
that book, no one knows how long after the cities of Alia were re¬ 
built—that is, as we have already feen, CHAP, xvi, after 780. Why 
then, if it can be made to appear that Strabo, the geographer, did, in 
all probability, govern that country, may we not prelume that he may 
have been no other than the fatlier of Sejanus ?—If we may, and can 
make it appear that he governed Egypt when Sejanus fell, we may 
hope alfo to be allowed to make this conclulion—viz—that what Dion 
fays of Sejanus’ intention to innovate, and, of the confequent dellruc- 
tion of his whole family is, to fay the leaft, a little more queflionabie: 
for if his own father, the pnefefl of Egypt, does not appear to have 
confpired with him, how can he be thought to have had any delign 

on the fovereignty ? 

< ■ ‘ * 

Strabo, we find, was, by his own account, xii. p. 336, born in the 
city Amafea, the metropolis of a Roman province of that name, be¬ 
tween Pontus and Cappadocia, and his maternal uncle Moaphernes 
was, as he himfelf alfo fays, xi. p. 343, the governor of Colchis, under 
Mithridates.—Of the city Amafea he fpeaks as our city. —In his early 
years he appears to have removed to Rome, and to have refided fo 
long there as to think it not indecorous to call it and its dependencies 


397 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

our territories —for inftance, fpeaking, iii. p. 116, of the inhabitants . 

\ 

of Cadiz, he fays, that they, though by no means a great people, 
covered our fea and the exterior with many and large fhips — Ovroi yap 

sicTiv oi oivofss, oi toc TrXtis'ct v.a.1 /.uyi^a, vavHXriptix <^sX \ovtss, sis te rvv xaS’ y)\xa.s 

Q»\xrr»v, nai sis ryv shtos .—And he, we find, notwithstanding he thus 
claims a fhare in the property both of his native city and the Roman 
feas, &c. afterwards, in the laft book of his work, where he is fpeak¬ 
ing of Egypt and of the contiguous countries, much more frequently 
claims a fhare in the property of the former—a lingular liberty, it 
muff be confefled, for a Roman to take with an exclufively imperial 
province, if he had not been the praefeeft of it; and what is flill more 
remarkable than either of the former things noticed, he, not far from 
the beginning of that book, fpeaks of the Ethiopians, of his own times, 
as leading a paftoral life, for this and one or two other reafons—viz 
—becaufe they are far from us, that is, furely, from us Egyptians, of 
whom he is principally fpeaking, and with whofe cuftoms, &c. he is 
comparing thofe of the Ethiopians, as may be thought to appear a 
little more clearly by the fubjoined remark—-the Egyptians, on the 
contrary, are more civilized. 

Why then fhould we not conclude that Strabo, the geographer, is 
likely to have governed Egypt, and, that he is likely to have been the 
father of Sejanus ? 

But, admitting that he is likely to have been fo, how will it be 
made to appear that he furvived his fon ? 

To this we will reply, that we hope to make it appear that he did 
furvive his fon—firft, by what he fays, book xvi, of thofe Chaldeans 
who were, by the reft, undervalued, becaufe they ftudied genethlia- 
logy—fecondly, by what he afterwards fays, in the fame book, of the 
conquefts made by the Jews after they came under the control of 







398 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

fuperftitious governors—next, by what he fays, in the xviith, of the 
inattention paid by his cotemporaries to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, 
and, to oracles in general—then, by what he fays of the name of the 
queen of the Ethiopians in his tune —of the Ethiopians worfhipping an 
immortal and a mortal God, and of fome of them denying the exift- 
ence of God—and, laftly, by what he fays of the hterefy of the Cyre- 
nians. 

Firft, he fays, of certain Chaldeans that they were, by the reft of 
their countrymen, undervalued, for ftudying genethlialogy—a diftinc- 
tion which he has not made, book i. p. 16, where he fays how much 
the Chaldeans* in general, or Magi , were, for their learning, honored. 
That thofe Chaldeans, or Magi, were confulted at Rome, from the 
days of Horace to thofe of Juvenal, appears by what the former fays 
in his ode to Leuconoe, and, by what the latter fays in his vi. fatire. 
That they were more confulted, in the reign of Tiberius, than even 
the ancient oracles, may be inferred from what Juvenalf and Tacitus 
fay.J That they were, a little before his death, patronized by Tibe¬ 
rius, and that he ftudied their favorite fcience and was a great profi¬ 
cient in it, Juvenal, Jofephus, and Tacitus fay. 

Secondly, he fays, of the Jews, 1 . xvi. p. 524, that the feparatifts, 
from them difturbed the peace of their own and of the neighbouring 
countries, and that partifans of thofe in power among them wafted 
other countries, particularly Syria and Phoenicia—o/ ^ yap atplra^voi 

TAV EXXXUV, XXI XVTY)V XXI TY)V ytlTVlUCTXV, 0/ <TV[A.'TTpXTTOVTES TQIS UpyBrjl 

xxQripTrxfyv rx aWorpia, xxi tvs 'Lvplxs xxrsrpsQovro, xxi tas <J>omx»y r rroXKi jv.— 

Now what does he mean by thofe feparatifts ?—When did they leave 

* Strabo says, p. 509, that Seleucus was one of the Chaldean x^oXoyot — 
and Seleucus, Suetonius says, vii. 4, was a genethlialoght, or mathematician. 

t S. vi. 557, &c. + Tacitus, iL 27. 


399 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

the Jews and lay wafle not only Judea but the country furrounding it? 
When did thofe agents of thofe in power lay wafle Syria and much of 
Phoenicia?—When did any party of Jews lay wafle their own country 
and the furrounding r—When did any coadjutors of thofe jn power 
upfet Syria and much of Phoenicia ?—If by this he did not mean to al¬ 
lude to the diflurbances caufed by the numerous arrefls, in Judea and 

! in all the furrounding countries, of believers as tranfgreffors of the law 
of Mofes, what can he have meant ? 

Strabo next remarks, xvii. p. 559, of the oracle at Ammon, and of 
oracles in general, how much they were, in his time, difregarded—to 
all I have faid of Ammon I have this to add—that both it and divina¬ 
tion in general, and places for that purpofe, were more in repute for¬ 
merly. Now they are much negle£led, the Romans being contented 
with the refponfes of the Sibyl, &c.^— -rioAAa S’ slpwoTss 7 rspi m A^^unios, 
Toaurov Emhv (3 u\o(j.e9x, oti rots xpyxlols [xolXXov yv ev Tifxr), xxi v [axvTixvi xa9oXx, 
XXI TX yjws'npix, vvvi Se oXtyuptx axTsyst 7roAAo?, tuiv P u^xlcov xpxvpuvuv Tots 
XiZvXXrjs yjyitryiols, y.xi rots Tvppvvly-ois 9ioirpom lots t 'Six te amXxyyiuv, y.xi opvlQetxs, 

XXI Sioar)i/.Eivv. euoTTEp xxi TO tv Apfxuil a-yjSov rl ex\e\eitttxi yprtrnpiov, mpoTepov £e 

, 

ETETl(X"nTO. 

_ ' L 

Strabo then informs us that the name of the queen of Ethiopia, 

\ ^ 

who reigned in his time, was Candace—and, that fhe was of a maf- 
culine mind—and, that Hie had but one eye.—He alfo adds that the 
Ethiopians worfhipped two Gods, an immortal and a mortal—-and, 
that fome of them denied the exiflence of any God—which, we find, 

, the early Chriflians were faid to have denied, if not to have worfhip¬ 

ped a man. 

* In what repute the responses of the Sibyl were with the Romans, in the 
reign of Tiberius, any one may form an opinion from what Petronius Arbiter 
represents Agamemnon (Tiberius) to have declared-viz—Nam Sibyllam qui- 
dem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla penderej et cum llh pueri dice- 

rent 2/CvAA«, r< Otteis respondebat ilia arnfawt 

/ 









400 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

Laftly, Strabo fays of the Cyrenians that they held an haerefy, which 
Anniceris was, in his time, delirous of rectifying —- x.xi Avyly.spis, o <$okZv 

nraLvxfiuaoti rw Kvpwioocnv aipzaiv, v.xi 7 rapxyayhv art avrns ryv Amxeptatv.— 

But who ever heard of any haerefy before the publication of Chriftian- 

ity ?_And who does not know that men of Cyrene are faid to have 

been fome of the firft publiffiers of it ?—And fo early as the begin¬ 
ning of the year 782 ? 

Now if all or any of thofe feveral things above noticed, as mentioned 
by Strabo in his two lafl books, be fuppofed to have a reference to the 
firft publishing of Chriftianity, why may we not conclude that Strabo 
was no other than Iberus, mentioned by Dion, as the predeceffor of 

1 

Flaccus in the year 785; however we feem to have reafon enough to 
conclude that the father of Sejanus furvived his fon, and was, at his 
death, entrufted with the command of Egypt. 

If then with Sejanus neither his wife, nor two of his three children, 
nor his father, nor his brother, nor his uncle fell, why are we told 
that all his family fell with him;—and if, when he fell, his father, his 
brother, and his uncle were permitted to continue in offices of the 
greatefl truft, why ffiould we think that Sejanus was put to death for 
revolutionary projects ? 

After Sejanus and one or two of his children had been put to death, 
not by the order of Tiberius, but by the tumultuary proceeding of the 
Senate, and, as Dion, we have feen, fays, to gratify the people of 
Rome, that city was, no doubt, as V. Maximus fays, foon quiet.— 
Far, very far from it. Dion informs us that much confufion ftill per¬ 
vaded it— 9 opv£os te 'tioXvs ev t>3 ttoXsi avv^vs^Ovi —-that the populace pro¬ 
ceeded to murder not only thofe who had been poffejjed of power under 

T 

Sejanus but alfo thofe who had behaved injultingly under him*—0 yap 

4 

* Pliny, in his N. H. xxviii. 2, which he entitles—An sit in tnedendo ver- 
boruin aliqua vis. &c.: seems to complain of insults by sneezing—and, to say 


' 




•, \ 





401 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

i 

($V)[A0S El 7TH TIVX Tuv (AEJX TTXpX Tii> "Ly)IXVCU (IuveOeVTCiJV XXI cf XVTOV vCpKTXVTMV XXTt~ 

(pcopx, eQoveve .—The foldiers too, (notwithstanding Tiberius had, as Dion 
fays, given exprefs orders to the magiftrates and commanders to pre- 
ferve the peace,) indignant at finding themfelves fufpefted of attach¬ 
ment to Sejanus by the fubftitution of night watches more in the con¬ 
fidence of the emperor— es mv m xvr oxpxropos 7 nr<V— became incendiaries 
and depredators.—If fuch outrages were, notwithftanding the exprefs 
orders of Tiberius to the magiftrates of Rome to preferve the peace, 
permitted to prevail, how could Tacitus.have faid, vi. 10, of Pifo, the 
U. P., that his chief praife was for having been wonderfully difcreet 
in the ufe of his power when the people were difpofed to be infubor- 
dinate ?—fed praecipua ex eo gloria, quod praefe&us urbi recens, con- 
tinuam poteftatem et infolentia parendi graviorem, mire temperavit.—• 
But what were the Senate doing in the mean time?—Inftead of paying 
the leaft attention to it they decreed a ftatue to Liberty f to be fet up 
in the Forum, and ordered, what was never done, on fuch an occafion, 
before, that the day, on which Sejanus fell, fiiould be annually cele¬ 
brated, as a feftival, by all perfons in office, and by all priefts, and by 
horfe races, and by the exhibitions of the fights of wild beafts—that 
they, being perfuaded that the Gods had infatuated him, in contempt 
of his memory, inftituted new rites to the Gods.—And, what fome 
perhaps may think rather more remarkable, they even ordered that 

that Tiberius encouraged the practice, by taking with him, in his carriage, 
that most dismal of mortals.—Whence this insulting practice originated, and 
who this most dismal wretch was, we leave Theologians to divine. 

i Pi^hius tells us that there is the following monumental inscription at In- 
terumma, which he supposes was engraven on this occasion—Saluti perpetu® 
August®, Liberia!ique purpeture P. It. —Providential Ti: Cresaris Augusti, 
nati ad eetemitatem roinani nominis , sublato hoste perniciosissimo. 





402 

4 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

neither exceftive honors thould be paid to any one, nor oaths made by 
any one but the emperor —kxi tI^xs fxnhvt vrrepoyKvs ^re ms 

opKas vn* aAAa tivos, TrXyv m xvToxpxropos vromaOx!. 

But does not the Senate, by fo doing, appear to have been not only- 
inattentive to the prevailing anarchy, but even encouragers of it?— 
And to have been clearly hoftile, not only to Sejanus, but to Tiberius 
as well?—By erefting a ftatue to Liberty in the Forum, they appear 
to have encouraged anarchy.—By voluntarily ordering the day on 
which Sejanus pcrifhed to be annually a day of rejoicing, they appear 
to have been enemies to Sejanus.—And by decreeing that no exceftive 
honors ftiould be paid to any one, or oaths taken by any but the em¬ 
peror, they appear to have a£ted not only moft ridiculoufiy (for Tibe¬ 
rius ever defpifed fucli honor and fuch a mode of fwearing) but moft 
infultingly—as indeed they feem to have acknowledged, only a few 
months after, by unanimoufly approving the fpeech of Terentius, in 
the courfe of which he faid—Non eft noftrum aftlimare, quem fuper 
casteros et quibus de caufis extollas. T. vi. 8. 9. 

Sejanus then was, we find, by the report of Dion, moft extrava¬ 
gantly honored, even as an autocrat, by Tiberius, the Senate, and the 
people, efpecially by the married ladies of Rome, the katakoreis, the 
deceived, and the believers, till within a few days of his fall.—And 
Tiberius was, by the report of the fame writer, confidered, by the 
Romans, as little more than the autocrat of Capreae.—That Sejanus 
put many of the nobles to death, he alfo fays, but for what crime, he, 
to our furprife, does not fay.—That he profecuted Fufius, the jeering 
conful of his aged fovereign, for imjhcty to him, the year before he fell, 
he, to our greater furprife, fays.—That Fufius, and perhaps his wife, 
killed themfelves, on that account, he, to our ftill greater furprife, 

* f7 u twv upwv ofAoaxi —to swear by the sacred victims. 






1 


403 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

averts.—And, notwithstanding he fays all this, he, to our much greater 
iurprife, fays, that he intended to feize the government.*—That the 
emperor’s letter accufed him of any attempt, or even defign, to injure 
or molefl his perfon, or to leflen his prerogative, he does not fay.— 
It faid nothing of his death, and perhaps not of his imprifonment, 
without a fair trial.—And yet no fooner was it known that Tiberius 
did not uniformly fpeak of him in his ufual tone, than all his fenato- 
rial friends and dependents began to defert him, and the confuls, one 
of whom was his friend, to pleafe the people who knew nothing that 
had been done, conduced him publicly to prifon, and apparently 
without a military guard.—The populace, mod of whom had con- 
fpired with him, feeing him thus difgraced, without knowing the rea- 

fon, infulted him and all his flatues in the mod outrageous manner.— 

% 

Not long after, he was, by a decree of the Senate , (mod of whom he, it 
feems, had obliged) and apparently without any order from Tiberius, 
executed, and his body expofed for three days to the infults of the 
populace, and then thrown into the Tyber.—All his children were, 
by a decree of the Senate, then deftroyed, not excepting a girl be¬ 
trothed to Claudius. Dion, it fhould be obferved, does not fay that 
any political innovators fuffered with him, (neither does V. Maximus) 
neither does he fay (as V. Maximus and Juvenal do) that order and 
public tranquillity were foon eftablifhed ;—on the contrary, he fays, 
that the mod terrible confequences enfued—that the very guards, as 
well as the populace, committed every kind of outrage—and that 
the Senate, though Tiberius had ordered the magiftrates to preferve 
the public peace, feemed to pay no attention to it—that they were 
overjoyed at the fall of Sejanus, and apparently inclined to trench on 

i 

♦ * 

* V. M. says to cause a general massacre at Rome. 

N n n 2 







I 


404 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

the prerogatives of Tiberius, and even to infult him—and that Tibe¬ 
rius, under the firetence of Sejanic accufatlons , put many to death, and 
caufed many to put themfelves to death. 

By the teftimony of thofe feven or eight writers then, three of whom 
were cotemporaries with Tiberius, and two born foon after his death, 
Sejanus was, in the beginning of the 18th year, accufed, by Tiberius, 
of fomething—but whether of meditating fome kind of political inno- 

i 

vation it does not appear.—Tacitus affirms that it was againft the 
fecurity and life of Tiberius—and that perfons of all ranks and ages, 
fenators and foldiers, men and women, were concerned in it. Jofe- 
phus fays nearly the fame. Dion too fays that the married women 
were efpecially concerned in it.—At the time when Sejanus thought 
of executing this plot, the imperious Agrippina and her fons Drufus 
and Caius, in favour of whom, and againft Sejanus, the populace of 
Rome had already declared, were ftill alive.—Confequently, it would 

be of no ufe to crufh Tiberius in his retreat, unlefs Rome was at firft 

./ • . _ 

fecured.—But the Jews, of whom there were fvvarms at Rome, were, 
fays Philo, much attached toTiberius.—To make way for the execu¬ 
tion of his plot, Sejanus thought it neceftary to perfuade Tiberius to 
expel them from Rome—though under what pretence he does not 
fay. 

Sejanus then having, as Philo fays, on fome pretence or other, pre¬ 
vailed on Tiberius and the Senate to expel the Jews from Rome, for 
fear they would oppofe his long meditated plot, next intended , as V. 
Maximus fays, to majjacrc all the rcjl of the inhabitants , though they 
were moftly, efpecially the married women , in his intereft—and not a 
few of them fwore, as Dion fays, even by his fortune.—But, in the 
mean time, fays V. Maximus, this long meditated plot was, by the 
divine providence and by the forefight of Tiberius, who was ftill at 


405 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

Capreae with his Chaldean aftociates, happily difcovered.—This dis¬ 
covery, it fhould obferved, feems, according to V. Maximus, Philo, 
and Dion, to have been made after the confulate of Tiberius, and not 
as Suetonius fays, betore.—Tiberius no fooner found out what his 
minifter intended to do, than he confidered with himfelf how to de¬ 
stroy him—and finding that he could not do it, with fafety, in an open 
manner, he devifed a method that aftonifhed Sejanus and all his party. 
The flep which he took was this—he, every now and then, wrote 
letters to Sejanus and the Senate, in which he gave different accounts 
of himfelf—and fome times commended Sejanus and his aftociates, 
fometimes found fault with them—which method of proceeding dif- 
concerted Sejanus, who, though he had fpies at Capreae, yet he never 
once thought of having recourfe to arms.—At laft Tiberius fent, by 
Macro, a very long and incoherent letter to the Senate, towards the 
clofe of which he faid that two fenators, the intimates of Sejanus, 
ought to be punifhed; and, laft of all, that Sejanus, ought to be con¬ 
fined. The two fenators feem to have been the two Blaefi, one of 
whom was the uncle of Sejanus, the other Pontifex Maximus.—As 
foon as it was only fuppofed that Tiberius had intimated a defire that 
Sejanus fhould be impriloned, all his adherents and creatures, even 
Trio, left him, and the other conful and other ftate officers furrounded 
him, and, without permitting him to fpeak for himfelf, condu&ed him 
to prifon, and all ranks of people, moft of whom were concerned in 
his confpiracy, without waiting for the formalities of a trial, flew, early 
as it then was, to crufh the enemy of their defender and protestor of 
their peace, together with all his family , excepting Livilla, his brother 
Lucius the praetor, and his uncle Blaefus, and perhaps his father.—All 
this was, as Juvenal and Dion fay, effected by the laft letter of Tibe¬ 
rius to the Senate, in which he, fays Dion, only, now and then, blamed 


I 





Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

Sejanus and intimated that he ought to be imprifoned, but faid nothing 
of the imprifonment of any other, nor of his death.—No writer, it 
fhould be obferved, fays that any other confpirator was imprifoned 
with him—nor, that any other, betides his own family, fell with him 
—neither does any one fay that any of his confpirators abfconded.— 
V. Maximus fays that the people trod him to death.—Seneca fays that 
they tore him in pieces—that there was not enough of him left for 
the hangman to drag through the flreets of the city.—Juvenal fays 
that the hangman did drag his body through the city—and that it lay 
on the banks of the Tyber, where the people, to fhew their allegiance 
to Tiberius, went and trod on it.—V. Maximus fays that no fooner 
was Sejanus put to death than tranquillity was reftored.—Juvenal 
feems to fay that the people were totally unconcerned about the 
matter.—But how different is this from that of Tacitus and Dion.— 
Tacitus fays that his fall was as injurious to the inhabitants of Rome 
as his continuance in power had been—that a fort of contention arofe 
between the Senate and Tiberius concerning the difpofal of his effects 
—that his adherents were profecuted and executed continually for 
feveral years after.—Dion, we find, fays, that the greateil anarchy 
enfued—that the commonalty proceeded to murder tliofe who had in- 
fulted under Sejanus—that the foldiers became incendiaries and depre¬ 
dators—that the Senate took no notice of all this infubordination, 
but rejoiced at his death—that they immediately decreed that his fall 
fhould annually be celebrated by the priefts and by new rites to the 
Gods—and that they decreed one or two other things highly offenfive 
to Tiberius—and, that Tiberius, under a Jiretence of Sejanic accufations , 
put many to death, and caufed others to put themfelves to death— 
T i£tpios 'rrpotyxo’iv rx ’Lmxvx cyKXn(j.zrz otoivuxusvos, orxw xnruKhvt thj 








407 


Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus. 

On a review of all that has been faid concerning the caufe of his 
fall , what do we perceive belides obfcurities, improbabilities, contra- 
didtions, and even glaring abfurdities?—Had the report of any of thofe 
hiftorians been fatisfadtory, would Juvenal, who was born before any 
of thofe who were not cotemporaries with Sejanus, have reprefented 
the people of Rome as afking fuch queftions concerning it ?—and ac- 
quiefcing in the fuggeftion that the foie caufe of it was a letter of the 
emperor to the Senate, the contents of which were never known. 

After all that has been faid of the caufe of the fall of Sejanus, it 
may not be amifs to obferve two things: the firft is—that if there was, 
as Seneca fays, and P. Arbiter alfo fays, a civil war at Rome, and in 
the end of 783 and beginning of 784, why did not Sejanus then feize 
the opportunity to effect his purpofe ?—efpecially as all claffes were 
well affedted to him ?—The other is—that V. Paterculus, who fpeaks 
mod highly both of Tiberius and of him the year before he fell, and 
of the then univerfal tranquillity of the Roman empire, is himfelf, 
though a great favorite of Tiberius, fuppofed to have fallen a vidtim 
to his attachment to Sejanus.—Now if two fuch fubjedts, who had 
been indebted to Tiberius for all their preferment, confpired againft 
him, can we wonder that he ordered them to be executed?—Or rather 
can we fuppofe that two fuch favorites (one of whom had publicly ac¬ 
knowledged how much they were both obliged to him) would, in the 
time of the greateft tranquillity, have confpired againft their fovereign? 
Paterculus, we know, in the laft chapter of his work, ufes an expref- 
fion which has puzzled annotators—fome think he fpeaks of com¬ 
plaints made to the Gods of fome God or Gods, but may he not by 
this have alluded to the introdudfion of fome new Deity?—And he, 
we alfo know, promifes, in the end of that chapter, to conclude with 
a petition.—What then is that petition?—It is that which occurs in 





408 

Of the cause of the fall of Sejanus . 

the work of Seneca, de Benif. 1 . 4, c. 7—or, that which V. Acidalius 
notices—and which he prefaces with a fort of acknowledgement that 
the author of nature had different appellations, and that Vinicius was 
at liberty to addrefs him by what name he pleafed ! 




409 


CHAPTER XXII. 



4 

When and why did Agrippa leave Italy ? 

/ 

t JOSEPHUS informs us, A. xviii. 7, a., that Agrippa was obliged 
to leave Italy on account of the vaft debt which he had contra&ed, 
moft of which, he fays, he had expended on the freedmen of Ceefar .—- 
But what he had to do with the freedmen ofCaefar, Jofephus has omit¬ 
ted to inform us, at lead in plain terms—he only feems to hint, and 
very obfcurely, that Agrippa hoped that fome project of theirs would 
fucceed —ikirtii rvs xvruv .—To this very incomprehenfible reafon 

our hiftorian, in the end of the fame fe&ion, has fubjoined another, 
as an auxiliary to that above dated— viz—that Agrippa had been one 
of the mod intimate companions ofDrufus, and that, as'I'iberius could 
not bear the fight of any of his fon’s favorites, he found it necefiary 
not only to leave Koine but Italy, and to retire to his own country. 
But is this other any way likely to have been the fmalleft part of the 
true caufe of his quitting Rome and Italy too, at any time?—What fay 
Seneca, Tacitus, and Suetonius of the manner in which Tiberius bore 

'Goo 


1 









4J0 


When and why did Agrippa leave Italy ? 

the lofs of his only fon?—Seneca, in his Confolation to Marcia, then 
almoft difconfolate for the lofs of her fon, chap. 15, propofes to her, 
before the death of Livia, Tiberius, as the moft remarkable pattern of 
fortitude under the lofs of his deareft fon.—He fays, that he fpoke his 
dear fon’s funeral oration, and that, when all Rome was quite over¬ 
come with grief for the lofs of that promifing prince, Tiberius was 
alone unmoved.—Tacitus fupports the evidence of Seneca on this 
point, he fays, iv. 10, that he did not relax his concern for the pub¬ 
lic welfare—that he had recourfe to public bufinefs as his folace — 
that he adminifteted juftice, and attended to the complaints of the pro¬ 
vinces as ufual.—Sed Tiberius nihil intermiffa rerum cura, negotia pro 
folatiis accipiens, jus civium, preces fociorum tra&abat. Suetonius too 
confirms this teftimony, he fays, iii. 52, that Tiberius made this reply 
to the people of Ilium, who were a little too tardy in addrefling him 
on the occafion—that he was very forry for their lofs of HeCtor. 

Now as thofe three writers bear fuch unanimous teftimony as to the 
noble conduct of Tiberius, on this afflicting occafion, why fhould we 
fuffer ourfelves to be perfuaded by Jofephus that he could not endure 
the fight of Agrippa, becaufe he had been one of the more intimate 
companions of his only fon?—And why, if that had really been true, 
fhould we fuffer ourfelves to be perfuaded that Agrippa would havei 
thought it at all neceffary to leave Italy ?—efpecially if Tiberius had, 
before he did it, left Rome?—And why fhould we not fufpeCt that 
Jofephus muff have had fome very finifter view for endeavoring to 
impofe a falfe opinion, in this cafe, on our credulity ? 

As we feem to have fo great an appearance of reafon for fufpedfing 
Jofephus of a defign to impofe on our credulity in this affair, let us 
proceed to examine what he fays further, with a degree of caution 
fuited to our fufpicions. 





' \ 

< , « 

w " / • — 

/ ' 

411 

' - ' «' V ; • 

When and why did Agrippa leave Italy ? 

Though he feems inclined to perfuade us, in the firft fe&ion of this 
7th chapter, that Agrippa went from Italy foon after the death of 
Drufus—that is, either in the year 776 or foon after it, yet who will 
deny that he feems to fay enough in the very next feftion to convince 
us that that prince did not reach Judea till after the marriage of his 
uncle and lifter, which, we fuppofe, happened in the year 780.—But 
whether he went from Rome and Italy to avoid his creditors, or to 
avoid injuring the feelings of Tiberius, it appears, both by what Jofe- 
phus fays in thp fifth fe&ion of this fame 7th chapter, and from what 
he again fays in his B. ii. 9, that lie, not many years after, re¬ 
turned thither again—for he, in this fame chapter, fays that he return¬ 
ed before the death of Pifo—that is, as Tacitus and Dion fay, before 
the end of the year 785—and, in his B. ii. 9, he, having faid that 
Pilate rifled the facred treafury, alfo fays, in the next that Agrippa, 
in the interim—Kiv r«rw—went to Rome for the purpofe of accufing 
(not Pilate obferve, but) his'uncle, the tetrarch of Galilee, of fome- 
thing.—In Italy he now appears to have remained, in the family of 
Tiberius, till the death of that monarch, as the tutor of his grandfon. 
But regardlefs of the patronage of that moft benevolent monarch, he, 
fays Jofephus, inftead of fhewing his gratitude to his benefaftor, and 
his concern for the only child of his friend Drufus, paid his court to 
Caius, and wifhedTiberius dead, and his own darlingCaius his fucceffor. 

As then Agrippa, by the account of Jofephus, feems to have lavifh- 
ed fuch an immenfe fum of money on the freedmen of Caefar, and in 
hojie that their pro]eft would fucceed , and to have left Judea for fome 
other reafon befides the fear of aggravating the grief of Tiberius, and 
afterwards to have been fo ungrateful to his beft friend, and fo bafe 
towards the furviving child of his departed companion, how are we to 
be fure that he was not the inftigator of the libertines J 

O 0 0 2 






412 


< 

CHAPTER XXIII, 

'■ . 


Was Peter at Rome in the days of Tiberius? 

We have feen that the faith of Chrift appears to have been 

*• 

received at Rome in the year 781, that is, nearly ten years before the 
death of Tiberius, and that, though much oppofition was at firft made 
to the reception of it by unbelievers, Jews, and Romans, thofe who 

received it were, during the remainder of his reign, permitted, under 

* ‘ • v 

his patronage, to profefs it without moleftation. And we feem to have 
reafon to think that it was, very fhortly after, received in almoft all 
the provinces—for Clemens of Rome informs us that Tiberius caufed 
inquifition to be made, throughout all the provinces, for the malefi¬ 
cent, (of whom Simon, it feems, was one,) in order to put them to 
death—and, immediately after the fall of Sejanus, ordered all his 
cheirotonized hyparchs, in the provinces, to be favorable to thofe Jews 
only who behaved peaceably.—-Indeed Eufebius as good as tells us, 
Eccl. hift. ii. 2. fin. and 3. init., that the example which Tiberius, by 
becoming obedient to the faith, fet, was, in a fhort time, followed by 


i 






413 


Was Peter at Pome in the days of Tiberius? 

all the world.—At leaf! we have reafon to think that churches or 
focieties of Chriftians were, in the courfe of his reign, eftablilhed in 
moft great cities—for inftance—in Antioch, in Alexandria, in Edefla, 
in Adiabene, if not in countries ftill more remote from Judea—viz— 
in Parthia, Mefopotamia, Arabia, India, Ethiopia, Libya, and Cyrene, 
of which province Crete, fays Strabo, xviii, was a part.—-About the 
end of his reign 10,000 perfons w^ere, fays Clemens of Rome, Recog. 
x. 71, in the Ihort fpace of feven days, converted, at Antioch alone, 
to the faith, on which occafion Theophilus, the molt eminent perfon 
there, converted his palace into a church. 

Now how were thofe various focieties of Chriftians governed during 
thofe ten years ? 

We do not read, in the new teftament, that any one of the twelve 
Apoftles attempted to preach the gofpel to Gentiles before Peter went, v 
at the fpecial command of God, to Cornelius, which, by all accounts, 
happened feven years after the afcenlion, or, u. c. 788, at which time 
the other Apoftles demanded of him the reafon why he took fo ex¬ 
traordinary a ftep, and Peter thought it neceftary to enter into a for¬ 
mal juftification of his conduct in that affair.—Neither do we read, in 
any part of the new teftament, that any of the Apoftles left Judea, for 
the purpofe of preaching to Gentiles, till the murder of James, who 
appears to have been put to death after the difciples were firft called 
Chriftians at Antioch, which event, as John, of that city, tells us, 
happened in the 10th after the afcenlion, or rather, if, as Eufebius 
fays, Eccl. hift. ii. 9, James fuffered after Claudius began to reign, he 
appears, by what Luke and Jofephus fay, to have fuffered before the 
feaft of unleavened bread in the 3d of Claudius, and therefore in the 
13th or 14th after the afcenfion; for Luke fays that he was put to 








t 


414 

Was Peter at Rome in the days of Tiberius? 

death before that feaft, and, feemingly, in the fame year that Agrippa 
died; and Jofephus fays that Agrippa died in the 7th of his reign.* 

„ As then we cannot find the leaft encouragement in the A£ls to think 
that any of the twelve Apoftles left Judea, for the purpofe of preach¬ 
ing to G entiles, before the death of James—that is, according to Eufe- 
bius, before the 13th or 14th year after the afcenfion, and confequently 
not any encouragement to think that Peter was at Rome in the reign 
of Tiberius; let us proceed to enquire whether any early ecclefiaftical 
writer appears to authorife us to think that Peter may have been at 
Rome in the reign of that monarch. 

# v 

Clemens of Rome, in his Recog. Homil. and G. P., mentions Petej- 
as having oppofed the preaching of Simon, the forcerer, at feveral 
places near Judea, and efpecially at Antioch, but he no where fays 
that he was at Rome in the reign of Tiberius.—Juft before his martyr¬ 
dom he mentions him, chapter 144 of the laft mentioned work, as 
having appointed fiimfelf bifhop of that city. 

Papias, it has been thought, has mentioned Peter as having been 
at Rome, becaufe he fays that Mark wrote what Peter preached, and 
Mark, Eufebius tells us, ii. 14, wrote his gofpel at Rome, as Peter 
preached it.—But though Papias may be fuppofed to have faid fo, yet 
he does not fay that Peter was at Rome in the reign of Tiberius. 

* By what Luke and Josephus say of the employment of Agrippa, at Ca?sa- 
rea, when he was, by the people, supposed a God, it appears that he was cele¬ 
brating the 11th quinquennial in commemoration of the building of that city 
by Herod—-for a Greek chronologist informs us that it was compleated in the 
first year of the 192d olympiad, or u. c. 742. OA —P0B. A. K xiaxpsia, ZTp*« 

rwos vtto Upcuou mA eiuQv. Eus. Chron. Can. p. 266 , says the same.—See Chron, 
Syu. p. 385. 







415 


JVas Peter at Rome in the days of tiherius? 

Eufebius, indeed, who fays, in his Chronology, A. n. p. 62, 1. 26,* 
that Cyrenius was, in the year 33 of Herod, fent to tax Judea—and, 
that our Lord was, as we alfo fay, born in that fame year,f fays alfo, 
in that fame page, 1 . 53, that he was baptifed in the 15th of Tiberius, 
and that he fuffered in the 18th year.—Eufebius furthermore fays, 
p. 64, 1 . 47, that Peter went, after he had founded a church at Antioch, 
in the 40th year of the incarnation, (which, by his own previous ac¬ 
count concerning the year in which our Lord was born, p. 62, 1 . 26, 
mull have been the 20th of Tiberius, and therefore, if, as fome fup- 
pofe, Cornelius was not converted within feven years after the afcen- 
fion, the year before Cornelius was converted) to Rome to preach the 
gofpel there.—But does Eufebius appear to have been always of the 
fame opinion?—If he does, why has he told us, Eccl. hift. ii. 14, 
of the effe£t of Peter’s preaching at Rome in the reign of Claudius?— 
Why has he, on the authority of Apollonius, of Hierapolis, recorded, 
Eccl. hift. v. 8, p. 126, C., the following tradition ?—and, without the 
Icaft animadverfion on the fingularity of it?—viz—that our Lord, after 
his refurre&ion, commanded the twelve not to depart from Judea till 
the expiration of twelve years, which twelve years expired in the year 
of Rome 793, or the third of Caius. — Erl c U us ex 'Tta^a^uasus rov 'Lurvpa. 
fan ‘nporirotyjvxi rots xvre xvoroXots, £7 n lubzxcx. inert pm yuptaOvvat ms lips- 

* tU Ay nil H puHiH K vpwtos vtio ts cvyxXnTH &Xonr^xX^ms as mv 

luSxtxv a.%roypx<pus z r notr t c'XTo run naiuv x <xt ruv oixmopuy. 

f Ey tv xvTv (Ay) I mas Xptfos 0 Gzos v/xvv ev B^Aee/a ms I ulxtxs ysvvxrxt. — 
The same thing he also says Chron. Can, p. 186.—bee Epit. Chron. p. 267. 

—1 - xxt ev Tv txvTU yiyfin 0 x.xt Avriayaxv run itvv apiQpos, tutu tv 

avrio zret, Hpu^ts <>£ Ay, K vpvivtos x. t. A. £y §£ tv ccvtu tTtt IHSOfE 0 Gzos v^uv f 
fn BtjOAes^x ysvyar*/.—Chron. Syn. p. 390, 

Query—What say the Syrian Christians in India, of the year in which our 
Lord was born ? 

















416 


Was Peter at Rome in the days of Tiberius? 

~ i • 

ast\v)[A .—Can Eufebius have thought this tradition handed to him by 
an immediate fucceflor of an intimate of the Apoftles* of no account? 
—Did he not know that Clemens, of Alexandria, a cotemporary of 
Apollonius, has recorded the fame tradition, and, as obtained, through 
Hebrews.—He fays, Strom, vi. p. 636, 7, Exv ^sv w rls QtXycrr, r« icrpxciX 

l xsrxvorirxi, Six ra ovoij.oc.tos (xa rci^ivsiv stti ©sov, atpviQria-ovroti xvrco oa x[xxprtxi 
fxsrx ScoSsxx sty) Qsts sis Tov yc.orp.ov, (XY) ns siTFY) Syc Y)yc.Hrxp.sv . — This, it 

fhould be obferved, Clemens gives as the report of Peter, for he pre¬ 
faces it with the following remark—£ ix Taro <P'i)(Tiv 0 Ylsrpos sipmsvxi rov 
K vpiov rots AvosoXots. —Now as the Apoftles are faid, by thofe very re- 

* Sell—of Papias—How it happens that the works of this most learned and 
most venerable Apostolic bishop are no longer apparent is unaccountable, but 
still more unaccountable that our modern recondite Theologians consider him 
as a mere mitred ninny. Had they paid due attention to the evidence of vifri- 
canus, Eusebius, Jerom, Andrew bishop of Cassarea, Photius, and the Alex¬ 
andrine Chron. concerning him, they would have discovered, that instead of 
having been what they unjustly suppose, he was among the first Apostolic 
presbyters, and not inferior, as a writer, to either Ignatius, Polycarp, or 
Clemens of Rome. 

Eusebius says of him, Eccl. hist, iii, that he emigrated from Judea, with 
Quadratus (who was a hearer of the Apostles) and many others, to preach the 
gospel—that he was, in the reign of Trajan, bishop of Hierapolis—that he was 
xvvip rx ntxvrx Xoyiiorxros kxi tvs ypxtpvis si^nixuv — that he was one of the Apos¬ 
tolic three who published a written record of the true Apostolic doctrine—that 
he was the only Apostolic presbyter that attested the authenticity of the gos¬ 
pels by Matthew and Mark, and that of the revelation to John.—And in his 
Chron. A. n. he says, that Papias was, with Polycarp, a hearer of John the 
Theologian. 

Jerom says, in Cat., that he was a hearer of John the Apostle —the compa¬ 
nion of Polycarp—and, the instructor of Irenzeus.—And, epistle to Luc., a 
Spaniard, that his voluminous works were so elegantly written, that he was 
afraid to undertake to translate them. 

Andrew of C., who lived about A. D. 500, quotes his work. 

Lastly—M. Aurelius thought him so great a pillar of the church that he 
caused him to be put to death. 


1 

✓ 





417 

Was Peter at Rome in the days of Tiberius? 

/ 

fpe&able early Chriftian writers, to have been commanded by their 
Lord, after his refurre&ion, not to go to the Gentiles till the expira¬ 
tion of twelve years, does not this feem to imply that they did not, 
till the end of that period, leave Jerufalem for the purpofe of preach¬ 
ing to the Gentiles ? 

In fhort—as Tiberius is faid, by Tacitus, to have left Rome in the 
year 779 for the purpofe of dedicating churches, and in the year 780 
to have finifhed that pious work—as he is alfo faid, by him, to have 

s. 

deprived,, in the year 788, the Blaefi. of the prieft-hood, and to have 
given it to others—as he is faid, by Philo, to have had certain hyparchs 
cheirotonized—and as he is faid, by Pliny, to have been fond of taking 
with him that molt gloomy of mortals in his chariot, to the great an¬ 
noyance of the Romans.—and, laftly, as it appears that Peter was 
not at Rome in his reign, why fhould we not conclude that fome other 
Apoflle ordained the firft preachers in Italy ? 


0 




1 


t 


V. 


Pp p 


( 















418 


\ 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, 
and of his conduct towards Christians. 

That the Romans, and all the people fubjeft to them, except¬ 
ing only the Jews, were, notwithftanding Tiberius had, as Tacitus, 
Suetonius, and Dion fay, then caufed his fon in-law, his adopted fon, 
and his only fon to be murdered, difpofed, fo late as the year 778, to 
worfhip him, with his mother and the Senate, Tacitus himfelf informs 
us.—That Tiberius, in that year, obje&ed to the practice, as impious 
in man and derogatory from the honor of the Gods.—That he, ever 
after, ufed, in his private converfation, to fpeak moft contemptuoufly 
of the worfhip of man, the fame writer alfo fays.—That fome perfons, 
notwithftanding his objeftion to fuch a mode of honoring him, con¬ 
tinued, ever after, to worfhip him, and," that many were, till the end 
of his reign, perfecuted for not worlhipping him, even by the Senate, 
is faid, not only by the fame writer, but by Seneca and Dion.—That 
he was, till he went to Capreae, that is, till he was nearly 70 years of 
age, accounted a favorite with the Gods, is plain from what the fame 
writer alfo fays of the means by which the fire on Mount Ccelius was 











419 


\ 


recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, Sge. 

/ 

commonly thought to have been extinguilhed.—That he was, till that 
time, accounted a moil admirable prince, is plain, from what Sueto¬ 
nius fays of the importunity of the people to fee him immediately after 
the Amphitheatre at bidenae, when crowded with two or three myriads 
of fpe&ators, fell and buried moft of them in its ruins—and that he 
really was, at that late period, fo good a prince, is alfo plain, from 
what the fame writer lays of his readinefs, though at the time over¬ 
come with grief, to comply with their requeft, on that occalion, and 

i - 

of his extreme condefcenfion to every body while there.—That he was, 
tor his beneficence on thofe two occafions, thanked both by the Senate 
and the people, Tacitus allures us.—That he was, till near the end of 
the fame year, (780) confidered, by the Senate, as the only fuffuge 
from exifting evils, that is, the evils caufed by accufers, Tacitus alfo 
allures us.—That he was, Hill later in that year, fufpicious and re¬ 
markable for a temerity of believing, and that Sejanus increafed it, he 
complains.—That the Senate was, in the beginning of the year 781, 
fo fubmilfive to his will, and fo hoftile to the family of Germanicus, 
as to condemn Sabinus, the only remaining adherent of that family, 
unjuftly, he alfo complains.—That Tiberius, at the fame time, com¬ 
plained that his life was in danger, he furthermore fays.-—That a 
motion was made, in the Senate, by Gallus, to requeft Tiberius to 
explain the caufe of his fears, in order to have them removed ;—that 
Sejanus objected to the motion on the fcore tliat the dilatory prince 
did not choofe to have the ground of his apprehenfions known, he 
alfo fays.—That the Senate, in the fame year, fought to conciliate his 
alienated affe&ion by the moft prepofterous devices, he furthermore 
fays.—That they, again and again, petitioned him to indulge them 
with an interview, but to no purpofe.—T hat they, finding all other 
expedients unavailable, came to the refolution ol proceeding, together 


Ppp2 


» 






V 


I 


\ 


\ 


420 


A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius , 8$c. 

with the knights and commonalty, to the coaft of Campania, in order 
to intreat him to grant them an interview.—That he would not, even 
then, confent to be feen.—That Sejanus did condefcend to fee a few 
of them, who were, foon after, on their return, made to fuffer a 
grievous exit for it, Tacitus moreover teftifies, but without attempting 
to account for this myfterious ftrangenefs.—That his mother, who had, 
for feveral years before, been, with him and the Senate, worfhipped, 
and who knew that cceleftes religiones had been decreed to Auguftus, 
defired him, a little before her death, (which happened early in the 
year 782,) to object to her confecration or immortalization, or, apo- 
theoofis, for a certain reafon; Tiberius himfelf, who, for fome reafon,* 
abftained from attending her funeral, faid—that her reafon could not, 
as Tacitus fays, have been left cceleftial religion fhould be decreed, 
any one may perceive by what has been juft faid—that her reafon is 
more likely to have been unlefs cceleftial religion fhould, at the fame 
time, be decreed, is, vre think, not improbable.—That very foon after 
his mother w’as buried much oppofttion was made, both by the Senate 
and by the people, to fome meafure propofed, to the Senate, by Tibe¬ 
rius, relative to Agrippina and her fon Nero, is, we alfo find, faid by 
Tacitus.—That both he and Sejanus were, in the Senate, publicly 
afperfed, and even by one of the confuls, is, we find, alfo faicf.—That 
Sejanus then complained of the infubordination of the people;—and, 
that Tiberius then alfo complained that his imperial authority had 
been publicly evaded by the finefle of one fenator, and that he then 
publifhed an edict reprimanding the populace, he moreover informs 
us.—That Tiberius and Sejanus were, in the year following, on the 
beft ol terms, Paterculus allures us.—That they were, in the fecond 
year following, colleagues in the confulfhip, we know.—That Tibe- 

t 

* If, as Petronius Arbiter says, Caesar complained that he was driven from 
Home, how could any one expect that he should attend his mothers funeral ? 


I 


421 

A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, fyc. 

rius then ufed, in his letters to the Senate, to ftyle him, the partner cf 
his cares , Dion and others fay.—That the mifinformed and believing 
'ntTBvovrss* then erected ftatues of brafs, with infcriptions on them, to 
both Tiberius and Sejanus, and placed gilded chairs of ftate, for both 
of them, in the Theatre, and, that the Senate, at the fame time, 
decreed that their confulfhip fhould be quinquennial, that a procef- 
fion fhould go to meet them as often as they lhould enter Rome, and, 
that they facrificed to both alike, Dion alfo fays.—That Sejanus was, 
in the courfe of that fame year, permitted to marry Livilla, Tacitus 
clearly feems to fay.—That he was, before the end of that fame year, 
put to death, nobody doubts.—That Tiberius was accufed of having 
been the caufe of it, we know.—But why he is fuppofed to have done 
it, nobody knew, even in the days of Juvenal.*—That he procured it 
to be done by fending a long unintelligible epiftle to the Senate, in 

which he faid nothing of his execution, though he, as Dion afterwards 

\ 

faid, had given orders to the magiftrates of Rome to prevent tumults, 
Dion moreover fays.—That the Senate, perceiving that none cf the 
guards were near to protect him , and in order to gratify the populace , im¬ 
mediately, without a trial and without fuffering him to fpeak for him- 
felf, condemned him, and, the fame day, proceeded (in defiance of 

r „ I 

the decree forbidding fuch precipitate executions,) to execute him, 
Dion furthermore fays.—That the Senate decreed alfo that his child¬ 
ren fhould be put to death, and that Livilla is alfo faid to have been, 
about the fame time, put to death, Dion alfo teflifies; but whether the 
was executed by the order of Tiberius, or by that of her own mother, 
Dion could not fay.—That a tumult enfued in the city, notwithftand- 
ing Tiberius had given orders to the magiftrates to preferve the peace, 

* Who those misguided and believing persons were, Dion, it is observable, 
does not say ; he, however, says, that they were not more inclined to treat 
Tiberius and Sejanus with respect than the Senate. 







422 


A recapitulation of what early writers say Of liherius , 

he alfo fays.—That the people murdered the partifans of Sejanus.— 
That the life-guards alfo became mutinous, not becaufe their com¬ 
mander and his friends had been killed, but becaufe night centinels, 
more in the faith—us iriTtv—of the emperor, had been appointed, and not 
only mutinous, but depredators and incendiaries, Dion alfo fays.— 
That the Senate too difagreed much among themfelves, and that thole 
among them, who had been the adherents of Sejanus, were in great 
trepidation and overcome by fear, as well they who had accufed others, 
as they who had borne teflimony againft them , left they fhould come un¬ 
der a fufpicion of having been the caufe of the death of thofe accufed 
perfons, not to gratify Tiberius, but Sejanus.—That a few, not of this 
number, hoped that Tiberius would be more merciful, for they thought 
that what had palled was occaftoned entirely by Sejanus, and, that 
Tiberius had nothing to do with it, and that he might perhaps have been 
ignorant of the whole affair, if not comjielled to aft the part which he 
had in it. —That private perfons, almoft to a man, were of the fame 
opinion.—That the Senate unanimoully decreed that nobody lhould 
mourn the fallen mifereant, that the effigies of Liberty ffiould be fet 
up in the Forum.—That the day on which he fell fhould, by all 

4 

perfons in office and by all the pricjls, be kept as a feftiva!.—That it 
fhould be annually celebrated by horfe-races, and by the exhibitions 
of the fights of wild beafts, and by the four colleges of pricjls, not ex¬ 
cepting the fociety of thofe lately inftituted to Auguftus.—That they, 
in contempt of his memory, infituted new rites to the Gods.—I That 
they believed the Gods had infatuated him.—That they ordered that 
no one fhould fwear by any other than by the emperor.—That the 
Senate decreed all this to few tbeir detcjlation of Sejanus, Dion fays.— 
That they alfo, at the fame time, decreed feyeral things in token of 
their approbation of Tiberius —viz—that he fhould, from henceforth, 
be faluted with the title of father of his country—that his birth-day 


I 


N 


423 

A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, $c. 

I I 

ihould be celebrated with ten horfe-races, and, with a fenatorial ban¬ 
quet, the fame writer likewife fays. 

■* * \ 

% 

After the fall of Sejanus, Dion proceeds to mention the following 
occurrences: 

That Tiberius, on hearing of his fate, rejoiced,* as might be ex¬ 
pelled.—That the Senate again fent a deputation to Tiberius, confift- 
ing of perfons of all ranks.—That he again would not permit them to 
fee him.—That he would not permit even Regulus, the conful, who, 
as Dion fays, was his loyal fupporter, to fee him, though he went, on 
purpofe, with a party of armed men, to conduct him, as he is faid to 
have requefted, fafe to Rome.—That many of the friends and rela¬ 
tions of Sejanus were, after his fall, alfo put to death, and that many 
others, who had before been acquitted, were again tried and put to 
death.—That fenators and knights, men and women, were put in the 
fame prifon, and, if they furvived the rigour of their confinement, 
prcecipitated from the Tarpeian rock.—That Tiberius was defirous to 
have every thing forgotten.—That he would permit Sejanus to be 
mourned, though the Senate would not.—That he was, in the follow¬ 
ing year, 785, flill fo much in fear of the Senate, that he would not 
venture among them.—That Lucius Sejanus dared, notwithfianding 
the fate of his brother the year before, to infult him, and that he 
took no notice of it.—That the Senate was, in the year 786, entirely 
fubfervient to his will.—All this, Dion fays, happened in lefs than two 
years after the death of Sejanus. 

Of Tiberius, while at Capreae, Suetonius afierts the following par¬ 
ticulars : 

* Tacitus says that Tiberius found no fault at all with Cejanus; and, at the 
same time, found the greatest with the Blsesi, on whom he had conferred the 
pontificate, and whom he, u. c. 789, dispossessed of that office, and gave it 
to others. 






424 


✓ 

A recapitulation of wliat early writers say of Tiberius, 8$c. 

That he, foon after his philanthropic vilit to Fidena?, when he was 
nearly 70 years of age, became a monfter of unnatural luft and of 
favage cruelty—that he drank human blood, as he formerly ufed to 
drink wine—that he, while at Caprea?, caufed a civil war at Rome.— 
That many perfons of all ranks, even condemned criminals, notwith- 
ftanding the machinations of fpies and accufers, took the liberty of ex- 
poling him, for his fuppofed deteflable vices, in the moll public man¬ 
ner, if not to his face.—That he paid no attention to thofe multifa¬ 
rious accufations, but calmly faid—Oderint dum probent.—That he, 
who, in 784, expelled the Jews, &c. for pra&iftng profane rites, was, 
a little before his death, negligent about the Gods and religion, and a 
fatalift; and that the people of Rome, after his death, execrated him 
as impious. 

Jofephus, on the contrary, fays, that he, at the fame time, prayed 
to the Gods of his country to be directed in the choice of a fucceflor, 
and to fome one God above the reft.—Agrippa, who had fpent much 
time with him, fays, that he was, during all his reign, a daily worjhifi- 
/ler of the mojl high God .—And this he ventured to aftert to his own 
enraged patron and kinfman Caius, even when he dared not to appear 
in his prefence.—V. Maximus gives us to underftand that he confider- 
ed him as being fo notorioufly the patron and encourager of morality 
and religion, that he, after the fall of Sejanus, prefumed to addrefs 
him as fuch.—Juvenal, who, had he been fo notorioufly vicious and 
irreligious, would not have omitted to expofe him for being fo, only 
fays, that he aftociated much, at the fame time, with Chaldeans.— 
And of Chaldeans, Strabo fays, that they were, excepting only thofe 

% N 

who ftudied genSthlialogy, men of the higheft reputation for fcience, 
efpecially Seleucus. 

Let us then attend to fome other particulars which Tacitus affirms 
of Tiberius. 


•w 

t 


425 

\ 

' / 

A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius , 

i 

That a moll grievous deftru&ion crept, by the no little artifice* of 
Tiberius, into Rome, he fays, but of what nature it was, from whence 
it proceeded, and when it fo crept into Rome, he does not fay, though, 
if we millake him not, he promifes to let us know, in the cafe of two 
roman knights, how it happened, and, feems to hint, that it was of 
a religious nature. Now if it was of a religious nature, and fo deftruc- 
tive, could it, conlidering what has been juft faid, have been faid to 
have crept in, by the artifice of Tiberius, before the 13th year of his 
reign?—That this moft grievous deftru&ion, though buffered to creep 
into Rome, after the 13th of Tiberius, by his no little artifice, was, 
by fome means or other, foon after reprefied, he alfo fays, but by 
whom it was reprefied he has taken care not to fay.—That it again 
fucceeded in finding a reception at Rome, but not irreptitioufly, it, on 
the contrary, blazed out and confirmed every thing.—That Chriftian- 
ity, which he alfo calls a deftruflive fuperftition, was, for the prefent, 
by fome means, alfo reprefied, he likewife fays, but when, and where, 
and by whom, he omits to fay;—that it again broke out, not only in 
Judea, but in the city itfelf, he moreover affirms.—That accufers be¬ 
gan their trade in the 13th year of Tiberius, and that he then dif- 
couraged them.—That they, in the 14th year, prowled moft furioufly 
and caufed indefcribable terror at Rome, but to what defcription of 
the inhabitants he does not fay.—That the internus pavor happened 
in the fame year, but where the caufe of it originated, how it found 
admiftion into Rome, and of what nature it was, and how long it con¬ 
tinued, this writer has, according to his cuftom, taken care not to fay. 

Let us now then attend to what the two Senecas fay—and, firft, to 
what the younger fays: 

* If Tiberius was really so imperious, as this writer would have us to believe, 
what necessity was there for him to use so much artifice to procure the entrance 
of any thing into Rome? 

Q q q 






426 


* 


A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius , $<?. 

» t 

That the rites of foreign nations were, in the reign of Tiberius, be¬ 
fore the death of Seneca the elder, and while the younger was juft en¬ 
tering on manhood, agitated by the Senate, the younger liimfelf fays. 
That-a certain fuperftition, which conftfted chiefly in abftaining from 
certain forts of animal food, attracted, at the fame time, the attention 
of the Fathers, he alfo feerns to fay.—That even fome of the Romans, 
of eminence, followed this new f/iecles of philofojihy and himfelf, 
among the reft, he alfo admits.—That it excited fome fort of calum¬ 
ny, he alfo admits.—That accufers were, in the reign of Tiberius, 
fuffered to difturb the peace of Rome, worfe than any civil war,f he 
alfo acknowledges.—That the things whereof they accufed people were 
of a religious nature, why fhould we not, from the example which he 
immediately adduces, conclude, though he would have it to be un- 
derftood that it was only for diflionoring an image of Tiberius. 

Seneca the elder fays, in his work on fuperftition, that the pra&ice 
of that raoft wicked of all people has acquired fuch an afcendancy that 
it has, even now, obtained a reception all over the world—the con¬ 
quered have given laws to their conquerors.—That he fpeaks, in the 
fame work, of the jewifh facraments, Auguftin informs us. 

Let us now attend to what Petronius Arbiter fays: 

In the beginning of his Satyricon, he fays, that Fabricius Yejento, 
in the days of Tiberius, publifhed a work, which he entitled, de reli- 
gionis erroribus.—That he, in that work, dete&ed certain myfteries, 

i 

he prefumes.—That thofe myfteries were, in his own days, publifhed 

* He says, Cons, ad Helv.—Apicius in ea urbe, ex qua aliquando philosophic 
velut corruptores juventutis, abire jussi sunt.—Now what does he mean by 
this?—When wer e philosophers, as corrupters of youth, ordered to leave the 
city? 

+ That those accusers must have been encouraged by Tiberius is unde¬ 
niable, if he, as Suetonius says, was the cause of that civil war. 


Ik* 



I 


\ 


X- > 

427 

A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiber ius , 8$c. 

boldly, and with a deceitful fury of vaticination , and by priefl&> he aiierts. 
He alfo fays that Eumolpus prefaced his poem on the civil war with 
this mofl unexpected confefiion, that nobody could expeCt to fucceed 
in the attempt, unlefs he was plenus litteris—that he then affigned the 
following reafon for it—viz—that tranfa&ions, which had far better 

be recorded by an hiftorian, were not to be the fubjeCt ofverfe, but 

_ • • 

that a free fpirit was to be hurried, with precipitation, through intri¬ 
cacies and the minif cries of the Gods , and a fabulous diftortion of fen- 
tences, that it may rather appear to be the vaticination of an infuriated 
mind , than the faithful exhibition of a religious oration attefted by wit- 
nefies.—He then proceeds to recite the poem, in the courfe of which, 
after having fpoken repeatedly of drinking blood , the compofer fays, that 
in the wdnter of the year when the Gemini were confuls a civil war, not 
lefs dreadful in its efFeCts than that caufed by Sylla, commenced at 
Rome.—That this civil war was kindled, not, as is always the cafe, 
by thofe who were impatient of government, but by Cafar himfelf 
whom he reprefents as folemnly protefting that he had been compelled 
to engage in it, bccaufc he had been driven from the feat of his govern¬ 
ment. —The refuit of this civil war, he fays, was, that the inhabitants 
of Rome thought it preferable, in the fpring of the year 783, (when, 

11 

we fuppofe, the Chriftians were expelled,) to defert that city, by all 
manner of ways.—Laftly, that Tryphaena was one of the emigrants, 
Petronius himfelf feems to intimate. 

Let us then hear what Paterculus fays: 

He fays, with apparent aflonifliment, that Tiberius was, in the year 

783, making a levy, which caufed not the leafl uneafinefs.—He then 

' / 

immediately appears to demand how he could help it, if complaints 
were made concerning the Gods.-—And, laffly, he addrehes a prayer to 
die Deity, as though he was in doubt by what name he (hould call him, 

Q. q q 2 









4 28 


A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, fye. 

The teftimony of V. Maximus next deferves a little attention. 

This writer, long after Tiberius had difclaimed any pretention to 
divinity, acknowledged, even to him, and with the mojl profound re- 
fpeft, his divinity, and obferves that it is, not like that of the reft of 
the Gods collected by opinion, but chara&erifed by a prefent faith. 

In the laft place, let us attend to what Pliny has faid of the inter¬ 
diction of magic ceremonies under Tiberius. 

This writer fays that the practice of immolating a man was fo com¬ 
mon, in the Roman empire, in the reign of Tiberius, that it was, by 
the devotees who followed that praCtice, accounted a moft falubrious 
thing to feed on the flefh of fuch victims—but to what Deity they 
were facrificed he, it is rather remarkable, omits to fay—that this in¬ 
human praClice was, through the Cyprians, derived from Mofes, he 
feems to intimate—that it was, by the Senate, in the reign of Tibe¬ 
rius, prohibited, he, with feeming exultation, informs us.—That any 
other ceremony of the fame Deity was, at the fame time, prohibited, 
he has omitted to fay,—That they obtained inconceivable applaufe for 
. it, he has taken care not to omit. 

In the laft place let us hear what Philo fays: 

This writer fays that a certain defeription of people, whom he names 

Taraxipolides, difturbed the peace of citizens and efpecially that of the 

\ 

jews of Alexandria, a little before Tiberius died, and that, when he 
died, a moft unufually profound peace pervaded every part of the 
world. 

Let us now then proceed to obferve what eccleftaftical writers fay 
of the year in which our Lord was born, of that in which he fuftered, 
and of the difturbances that attended the firft preaching of the gofpeh 
not only in Judea, but in almoft every other place. 


429 


A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius , fyc. 

That our Lord was born in the 33d year of Herod, Eufebius, we 
find, fays, in his Chronology, p. 62.—That the 33d of Herod coin¬ 
cided with the year of Rome 747, the preceding fynopfis manifefls.-— 
That he was, when 30 years of age, baptized, Luke informs us.—That 
the 30th year of our Lord coincided with the year of Rome 777, or, 
with the 10th of the monarchy of Tiberius, and not, as Eufebius fays, 
with the 15th, the preceding fynopfis alfo evinces.—That Tiberius 
was colleague, in authority of every kind, to Auguflus five years, we 
have proved.—That Luke, by faying that the 30th year of our Lord 
happened in the 15th of Tiberius, mufl therefore have meant to fay 
that Tiberius began to reign five years before the death of Auguflus, 
is evident.—That in the year 778, when our Lord began his miniflry, 
the 46th year of the temple had elapfed, Jofephus has made it appear 
by what he fays, B. i. 21:—viz—that the rebuilding of the temple com¬ 
menced in the 15th year of Herod.—That our Lord’s miniflry lafled 
three years, we hope to prove, in a fubfequent treatife, on the chro¬ 
nology of the new teflament.—That our Lord buffered in the year 781 
feveral authors appear to have attefled.*—That the pafchal full-moon 
happened that year on a Friday, we are told.—That he.was expected 
to appear in the lafl jubilee, we are alfo told.—That the lafl jubilee, 
before the deftrudlion of Jerufalem, ended in the 13th of Tiberius, we 
hope to prove alfo in the propofed treatife.—That the gofpel was 
preached at Rome in the courfe of the fummer after our Lord buffered 

* Eusebius, Eccl. hist. i. last chapter, says, that it appeared by the records 
in the archives of Edessa, which he copied verbatim , that Thaddcus went to 
Edessa in the year 340—that is (according to the computation of the Edcsse- 
nes, who began their aera with the first year of Seleucus—or, the first year of 
the mth olympaid,) in the first year of the 202d olympaid, in which year 
Christ ascended. 

The excerpta utilissima, adduced by Scaliger, as taken from the first book 
of Eusebius' chronology and from the works of others, say—Paulus in aposto* 
latum ordinatur in consulatu Rubellionis. 










A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius , $c. 

Clemens of Rome informs us.—That fierce oppofition was then made 
to it, he alfo informs us.—That it was, by the Jews, continued feve- 
ral years after, and on account of certain meats, Paul fays.—That 
Tiberius was, before Paul fent him an account of it, apprifed of all 
that had happened in Judea by Pilate, he himfelf told that prince.— 
That his attention was then occupied by fome diflurbances in Spain, 

he alfo told him.—That he had, before he received the letter from 

\ 

Abgarus, referred the confideration of admitting the worfhip of Chrifl 
to the Senate, he moreover told him.—That the Senate refufed to 
comply with his propofal, he confeffed to him.—That it expelled 
Chriflians, as being Jews, from Rome, we are told.—That he then 
threatened death to the accufers of Chriflians, he informed him.—That 
he made inquifition, not only at Rome, but in all the provinces, for 
the maleficent, in order to punifh them with death, Clemens of Rome 
likewife informs us.—That the jewifh libertines were the firfl who 
oppofed the faith of Chrifl, Luke allures us.—That they did fo, and 
thereby caufed Stephen to be floned, as a blafphemer, about the end 
of the year in which our Lord fuffered, may be eafily made to appear 
by what ecclefiaflical writers fay.—That Agrippa impoverifhed him¬ 
felf, by profufe lar'gitions, to certain libertines, in hope that, fome 
projed of theirs would fucceed, Jofephus informs us.—That 4,000 of 
them were fent to Sardinia, and many others punifhed for not enlifl- 
ing, he alfo informs us.—That the former were Taraxipolides, and the 
latter believers,, why fliould we doubt?—That the Sanhedrin, in the 
year 782, fent to flrange cities—that is, cities in other countries, for 
tranfgreflors of the law of Mofes, and even for the believers in Chrifl, 
as being fuch, Luke informs us.—That many of thofe believers in 
Chrifl were, as tranfgrelfors of the law of Mofes, floned to death, Paul, 
who was employed to do it, informs us.—That the cuflom of floning 
Chriflians, as blafphemers, was continued for the fpace of two years, 




431 

A recapitulation of what early writers say of Tiberius, fyc. 

\ 

we learn from what Paul told the Galatians.—That this perfecution of 
believers, by the Sanhedrin, was, about a year or two after, by fome 

hitherto unknown means, caufed to ceafe, and, that Paul went, about 

\ 

a year after, up to Jerufalem, and there preached Chrift, in the face 

i 

of thofe who had commiffioned him to perfecute others for the fame 
offence, we are affured both by himfelf and by his travelling compa¬ 
nion Luke.—That Ifrael was deprived of the privilege of putting a cer¬ 
tain fet of perfons to death in the 40th year before the deftru&ion of 

L 

Jerufalem—that is, in the 16th year of the monarchy of Tiberius, the 
Talmud of Jerufalem informs us.—That this privation made not the 
leafl commotion among the Jews, even of Judea, all hiftorians grant. 
That the Jews were, till late in the year 784, more attached to Tibe* 
rius than any other people, Philo, we find, affures us. 


I 


\ 


* “i 



/ 



I 





















% 


432 

* 


Cortclitgtoti. 



1 .F the premifes be right who will deny that the following con- 
clufions may be drawn from them?—viz—That the fcofFers at revealed 
religion are incomparably greater fools than they have hitherto been 
thought.—That Unitarians are rather more fo.—That the firft Pope 
was an arch-impoftor, and the greater part of the firft general council 
a fet of knaves or fools.—That the Catholic claims are the claims of v 
dangerous haeretics. 























Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 


Treatment Date: 


NOV 2001 

PreservationTechnologies 


A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 


















































































